Alachua County Humane Society Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
591908492
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Gainesville, FL, USA
Phone
3523735855
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,175,797
Expenses
$3,241,240
Assets
$8,656,976
Liabilities
$1,499,641

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Chelsea Bower (Executive Director)
  • Larry Garcia (Vice President)
  • Danielle Richter (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Emma Johnson (Veterinarian): $150,086 total reported compensation
  • Jin Hee Chung (Veterinarian): $117,089 total reported compensation
  • Chelsea Bower (Executive Director): $109,170 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To eliminate the needless euthanasia of healthy and treatable pets in North Central Florida by advocating for pets and owners, rehabilitation and adoption of pets, humane education and outreach, and promoting the spaying/neutering of our communitys companion animals.

What it reported doing in 2025

PetSnip- The Alachua County Humane Society offers low-cost, high-quality spay/neuter services through our Operation PetSnip program. Our community partners believe that targeting very low income and spay/neuter resistant owners is the key to increasing pet sterilization and achieving no-kill status in the Alachua County area. Operation PetSnip completes over 5,000 spay/neuter surgeries each year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.2%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.4%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.67; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.9%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.2% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 13 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.