The August Foundation for Alaska Racing Dogs

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463701510
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Chugiak, AK, USA
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$164,922
Expenses
$138,285
Assets
$278,637

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Julie St Louis (Director)
  • Gwendolyn Johnson (Treasurer and Gaming licensee)
  • Mercedes Wallace (Assistant 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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The August Foundation for Alaska Racing Dogs primary exempt purpose is helping provide veterinary care and located homes for sled dogs when their racing or touring days are over and helping with the overflow of puppies from Alaska Native Villages to become socialized with mushing kennels as fosters to prepare the puppies for adoption.

What it reported doing in 2024

This past year we took in 14 litters of puppies from Alaska Native Villages that were flown in to Anchorage. This amounted to more than 100 puppies and some with moms still nursing to be spayed and rehomed or returned back to their owners in the villages. Each litter of puppies was fostered here on site or at mushing tour kennels where the puppies would be handled by tourists and be cared for daily until old enough to be adopted. This provides wonderful socialization and growth opportunities for the puppies who end up being confident happy and more easy to adapt to their new adoptive families meaning we have less returns after adoption.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, 7% for grants, and 41% for member benefits.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.8%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 70.1%; rating input score 70

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.2%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.01; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.8% of revenue deployed · 70.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $97K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.