Second Chance Animal Advocates

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473336340
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Stoughton, WI, USA
Phone
6082053180
Rating
35
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$348,783
Expenses
$259,804
Assets
$120,050
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KARI AAGERUP (PRESIDENT)
  • KATIE GROB (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KARI AAGERUP (PRESIDENT): $48,721 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide information to the public promote responsible pet ownership encourage spaying & neutering of pets deter abandonment & other cruelties toward small animals and to financially help those who truly cannot afford the necessary medical cost of spaying neutering or unexpected emergency.

What it reported doing in 2025

52 small animals benefited - spays neuters vet appointments surgeries or portions of larger vet expenses were paid.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 7
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.2%; rating input score 7
  • Program expense ratio: 9.7%; rating input score 10
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.5%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.8%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 94.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 72.4% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.2% of revenue deployed · 9.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $25K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $49K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 43 current checks pass · 11 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX BenefitsToMembers column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.