Wildlife Damage Veterinary Management
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 931498587
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2023–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Dublin, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5104320701
- Rating
- 89
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,810
- Expenses
- $5,019
- Assets
- $1,400
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Deborah Aparicio (President & CEO)
People named in this filing
- Deborah Aparicio (President & CEO)
- Tara Reichert (Secretary)
- Nadya Cerumen (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide vaccination services for dogs in remote areas.
What it reported doing in 2025
A 2 week trip of veterinarians and staff was made to Kenya in 2025 to vaccinate and deworm animals in many remote, rural villages.2 volunteer veterinarians, 2 volunteer staff members and 4 Red Cross Kenya volunteers participated in providing the services, free of charge. Approximately 400 dogs, 50 cats and 20 donkeys were vaccinated and dewormed. All travel expenses and medical supplies used for the vaccinations were paid out of pocket by the veterinarians and staff.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -4.3%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 194.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 110.9% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 69.8% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.