The Arrow Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611396389
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Prospect, KY, USA
Phone
5029745012
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Victims' Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$486,907
Expenses
$363,985
Assets
$519,659
Liabilities
$3,434

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEIGH ANNE FERRERI (PRESIDENT)
  • SHELIA JONELEIT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (EFFECTIVE 9.8))
  • THOMAS HAM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 4.30))

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS HAM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 4.30)): $22,667 total reported compensation
  • SHELIA JONELEIT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (EFFECTIVE 9.8)): $21,667 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The arrow fund is dedicated to increasing public awareness of all forms of animal cruelty by providing veterinary care and support to animal victims of extreme torture, abuse, and neglect and encouraging vigorous criminal prosecution of animal abusers. In addition, the arrow fund endorses and supports other animal protection efforts including, but not limited to: specialized animal welfare training for law enforcement; aggressive spay/neuter initiatives; humane education of children, and any other programs that encourage a more humane world for animals.

What it reported doing in 2025

Increase public awareness of animal cruelty; secure care and veterinary treatment for abused animals; and pursue legal action against animal abusers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% 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

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.3%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.2%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.43; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.3% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $291K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $23K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.