Geauga County Humane Society Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237358431
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Novelty, OH, USA
- Phone
- 4403384819
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $8,995,039
- Expenses
- $4,391,779
- Assets
- $12,107,454
- Liabilities
- $130,660
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JILL SHANKAR (VICE PRESIDENT)
- CARRIE RADIVOYEVITCH (PRESIDENT)
- KENNETH CLARKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MEGAN VOLPE (DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL SERVICE): $171,225 total reported compensation
- KENNETH CLARKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $170,549 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Rescue village takes a holistic approach to helping pets and people. From foster and adoption programs to our partnerships - we grow and protect the bonds between animals and human beings to make this world a better place for everyone.
What it reported doing in 2024
Founded in 1974, the geauga county humane society, inc., also known as resuce village, is where thousands of homeless animals find a warm, dry place to stay each year while they await their adoption. Animals are provided regular meals, enrichment, and medical care in a state-of-the-art clinic. Rescue village has room for cats, dogs, small animals, and billie's barn for domesticated barn animals. Rescue village also investigates neglect, abuse, or cruelty complaints, while enforcing Ohio's animal anti-cruelty laws. Rescue village organizes woofstock, northeast Ohio's largest dog festival. The 19,000-square-foot faciility and 5,000-square-foot barn are located on 14 acres of land in a park-like setting between cleveland's eastern suburbs and geauga county's rural farming communities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 55
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 40.3%; rating input score 40
- Program expense ratio: 81.4%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: 51.2%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.76; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.8%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 40.3% of revenue deployed · 81.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 17 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- 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 40/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.