Veterinarians Without Borders USA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
922618654
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6138801655
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$763,110
Expenses
$583,991
Assets
$277,169
Liabilities
$197,735

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • REBECKAH PIOTROWSKI (SR DIR BUSIN): $92,434 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to strengthen animal health and welfare to build more resilient communities. We do this by enhancing veterinary care, bolstering community disaster response and recovery, championing sustainable livelihoods, and improving the well-being of animals, humans, and ecosystems worldwide.

What it reported doing in 2025

Vwb made significant progress toward strengthening veterinary outreach, emergency response, food security, and livelihood resilience in conflict- affected communities in ukraine. The project completed a gender-sensitive assessment of access to veterinary services across 34 settlements in 14 target communities in kharkiv and poltava regions, drawing on the experiences of 253 smallholder livestock producers. The assessment identified critical service gaps, including limited rural veterinary access, weak diagnostic capacity, infrastructure constraints, and the growing role of women in livestock production. Stakeholder mapping was completed, and formal partnerships were established to support coordinated veterinary outreach, knowledge sharing, and resource provision. The project implemented a micro poultry farming initiative in kharkiv region to improve household food security and self-employment opportunities. A total of 674 people registered, 525 completed the poultry training program, and 400 participants received starter kits containing chicks, feed, equipment, veterinary products, and technical guidance. Participants received ongoing mentorship through online consultations and peer support networks. The project also completed market research and value chain analysis, delivered seven online and in-person training events, established three value chain linkages, and procured feed mill equipment to support long-term cooperation and reduced production costs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.9%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 59.9%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 49.3%; rating input score 49; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.5%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.71; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.8%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 39.9% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 83.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 108.9% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.9% of revenue deployed · 59.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $350K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.