The Animal League of Green Valley

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742378040
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Green Valley, AZ, USA
Phone
5206253170
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,568,683
Expenses
$1,236,693
Assets
$9,614,758
Liabilities
$120,748

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kimberly Eisele (President)
  • Rose Welliver (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Kimberly Eisele (President)
  • Rose Welliver (Vice President)
  • Caroline Hewatt (Secretary)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

TALGV's mission is 1) to provide compassionate care, shelter, training, adoption opportunities, emotional support, and medical care, including spaying and neutering, for needy and homeless cats and dogs in Green Valley and surrounding areas, by carefully managing donated funds and volunteer talents; 2) to raise awareness and funding for TALGV through the profitable managing of the Attic Thrift Store; 3) to reduce the number of unwanted pets through subsidized spay/neuter programs and education; 4) to collaborate with other animal agencies to help animals find a place to call home.

What it reported doing in 2025

Animal Care Services: All of the resources of The Animal League of Green Valley go towards caring for shelter animals and helping people of limited financial means care for their pets.Animals taken in: 646 cats, 430 dogs, total 1,076Animals going out: Adoptions 594 cats, 351 dogs, total 945Other 51 cats, 81 dogs, total 132Total going out 645 cats, 432 dogs, total 1,077Note: It is possible to have more animals going out than were taken in because some animals remained from the previous year and some were born at The Animal League.The Animal League incurred the following expenses to treat and care for the animals in its shelter: Contracted Animal Care Services TALGV (in house) $34,015Veterinary Care TALGV (in house) $109,341Payroll Animal Care TALGV (in house) $127,065Payroll Tax Animal Care TALGV (in house) $11,057Pharmaceutical TALGV (in house) $156,092Other Medical TALGV (in house) $5,310Total MEDICAL EXPENSES TALGV (IN HOUSE) $442,880

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.5%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 77.7%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 51.9%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.77; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.5% of revenue deployed · 77.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $961K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.