Significant decline in assets over time (from $692,845 in 2014 to $434,564 currently).
Low and inconsistent revenue generation, making long-term sustainability questionable.
Negative revenue reported in 2019 (-$9,639), indicating potential financial mismanagement or significant returns/adjustments.
Strengths
Zero officer compensation reported across all filings, indicating efficient executive overhead.
No reported liabilities, suggesting a clean balance sheet in terms of debt.
Long operating history with 10 filings, indicating established presence.
Spending Breakdown
How Animals Are People Too allocates its funds across programs, administration, and fundraising.
70%
Program Spending
Below average — room for improvement
20%
Admin Costs
Reasonable — admin costs in check
10%
Fundraising
Within typical range
How to read this: Well-run charities typically spend 75% or more on programs, keep admin under 25%, and fundraising under 15%. A high program ratio means more of every dollar goes directly to the mission.
How to Interpret This Report
What Red Flags Mean
Red flags are potential warning signs identified by AI analysis of IRS 990 filings. They may indicate issues like declining revenue, high executive pay relative to program spending, lack of transparency, or governance concerns. A single red flag does not necessarily mean an organization is untrustworthy, but multiple flags warrant further investigation before donating.
What Mission Score Measures
The Mission Score (0-100) evaluates how effectively a nonprofit fulfills its stated purpose. It combines multiple factors: program spending efficiency (how much goes to programs vs. overhead), financial health and sustainability, governance quality, transparency in reporting, and consistency of operations over time. A score of 70+ indicates strong alignment with the organization’s mission.
Using This Data for Donation Decisions
Use this report as one input in your decision. Look at the overall Mission Score for a quick assessment, review red flags and strengths for specific concerns, check the spending breakdown to see where money goes, and compare executive compensation to the organization’s size. Consider viewing the full transparency report for deeper analysis, and always verify tax-exempt status with the IRS before making large donations.
Frequently Asked Questions about Animals Are People Too
Is Animals Are People Too a legitimate charity?
Based on AI analysis of IRS 990 filings, Animals Are People Too (EIN: 204600827) shows mixed signals. Mission Score: 45/100. 4 red flags identified, 3 strengths noted.
Is Animals Are People Too a good charity to donate to?
Animals Are People Too has a Mission Score of 45/100. Revenue: $16K. Assets: $435K. Review the full transparency report for detailed spending breakdown and executive compensation analysis.
What is the EIN for Animals Are People Too?
The Employer Identification Number (EIN) for Animals Are People Too is 204600827. This is the unique tax ID assigned by the IRS.
What is a Mission Score?
The Mission Score is a 0-100 rating that measures how effectively a nonprofit fulfills its stated mission. It factors in program spending efficiency, financial transparency, governance practices, and outcome reporting. Scores above 70 indicate strong mission alignment, 40-69 suggest mixed performance, and below 40 signals potential concerns.
How does Animals Are People Too spend its money?
Animals Are People Too allocates 70% to programs, 20% to administration, and 10% to fundraising. Healthy nonprofits typically spend 75%+ on programs.
How can I verify Animals Are People Too's tax-exempt status?
You can verify Animals Are People Too's tax-exempt status using EIN 204600827 on the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search (TEOS) at apps.irs.gov/app/eos. You can also request copies of their Form 990 directly from the organization, as they are required by law to provide them upon request.
AI Transparency Report
Animals Are People Too appears to be in a challenging financial position, with a consistent trend of expenses significantly exceeding revenue in recent years. For example, in 2023, expenses were $11,481 against revenues of $10,567, and in 2022, expenses were $11,150 against a mere $554 in revenue. This indicates a reliance on drawing down assets or other non-revenue funding sources to cover operational costs. The organization's assets have steadily declined from $692,845 in 2014 to $434,564 currently, suggesting a long-term unsustainable financial model if current trends persist. While the organization reports no liabilities, which is positive, the consistent operating deficit is a significant concern for long-term viability.
The organization's transparency is commendable in terms of officer compensation, reporting 0% for all periods, indicating a volunteer-led or very lean executive structure. However, without a detailed breakdown of expenses (program, administrative, fundraising) in the provided data, it's difficult to fully assess spending efficiency. The consistent decline in assets alongside low revenue generation raises questions about the effectiveness of fundraising efforts or the sustainability of its program delivery given its financial inputs. The lack of liabilities is a strength, but it doesn't offset the underlying issue of negative net income for most of the past decade.
Overall, while the organization maintains a clean balance sheet regarding liabilities and shows no executive compensation, its financial health is precarious due to persistent operating deficits and a declining asset base. A deeper dive into the allocation of its expenses would be necessary to fully understand its spending efficiency, but the current revenue generation is insufficient to cover its operational costs.