RI Companion Animal Alliance Dba Pets in Need Veterinary Clinic

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812003100
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Riverside, RI, USA
Phone
4012703832
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$356,079
Expenses
$478,570
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Henry Wietsma DVM (Board President)

People named in this filing

  • Brett Leinkuehler (Director)
  • Greg Wolfus (Director)
  • Ernie Finnochio DVM (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. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide high quality, low-cost veterinary care to the pets of low-income RI residents.

What it reported doing in 2020

Exams, Vaccines and Diagnostic Testing - In 2020, Pets in Need provided 2,798 examinations to the pets of low-income Rhode Island residents. Pets in Need also provided 2,144 vaccinations to protect the human and animal population against zoonotic diseases, including rabies. During the examination of each pet, diagnostic testing is offered at a reduced rate compared to other veterinary clinics. In 2020, Pets in Need provided 2,409 diagnostic tests such as blood tests and x-rays.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 75.8%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -31.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.6% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 75.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $363K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.