Raising Aid for Dogs at Risk (Radar)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454375200
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2020
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Phone
7173410104
Rating
91
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,147
Expenses
$77,574
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rick L Thompson (President, Treasurer and Director)
  • Kenneth W Siegert (Vive President, Secretary and Director)

People named in this filing

  • Rick L Thompson (President, Treasurer and Director)
  • Kenneth W Siegert (Vive President, Secretary and Director)
  • Steffi S Ridgel (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Assisting with costs for at-risk dogs in rural shelters.

What it reported doing in 2020

Assisted with the veterinary costs for 196 at-risk dogs in rural shelters in Appalachia and the Southeast in the following states: SC (125), NC (40), Tn (13), VA (9), WV (5), KY (3) and MS (1).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.4%; rating input score 99

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -68.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -25.8% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -63.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $77K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2019 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.