Cat's Cradle of the Shenandoah Valley Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203269224
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Harrisonburg, VA, USA
Phone
5404331135
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$833,895
Expenses
$836,281
Assets
$1,941,301
Liabilities
$12,387

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SHERRI P HEISHMAN (EXECUTIVE DI): $102,701 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cats cradles mission is to ensure and maintain and safe, compassionate community for cats in the shenandoah valley. We do this by facilitating and promoting spay/neuter and trap, neuter and return (tnr), conducting foster-based rescue and adoption from local shelters, and providing pet retention and rehoming programs. Our intent is to steadily decrease the intake of cats and kittens at local shelters and to ultimately end the euthanasia of healthy adoptable pets in the communities we serve.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community support-this program includes the following activities: spay/neuter (sn) and medical assistance (ma). 3,925 cats were altered during 2024, of which 1,411 were trap, neuter & return (tnr). Ma is provided to cat owners or caretaker of strays/colonies with financial circumstances that prevent them from being able to obtain veterinary care for their cats, thus promoting pet retention. There were 232 families authorized for ma for their cats in 2024, of which 127 were helped and care was completed and billed during the year. We partnered with various local veterinary hospitals and spay/neuter clinics to provide low cost spay/neuter and other medical services to pet owners and caretakers in rockingham, page and augusta counties as well as the cities of harrisonburg, staunton and waynesboro. Services included transportation, trapping and financial assistance-or any combination thereof-depending on the client needs. Most people provided some level of copay. Contributed veterinary services in the form of discounts totaled 1,148.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.32; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.3%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.6% of revenue deployed · 89.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $747K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $103K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.