Grimes County Animal Rescue

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822559161
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Anderson, TX, USA
Phone
2143990149
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$182,663
Expenses
$177,475
Assets
$639,811
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jeffrey K Priestley (President-)

People named in this filing

  • Jeffrey K Priestley (President-)
  • Alexander L Sundstrom (Treasurer)
  • Micheie Lea Gremillion (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

GCAR is a state of Texas 501c corportation which was created to build and operate a animal care facitly in Grimes County. GCAR is now a fully operational facitly servicing the Grimes County with a fully operational Dog and Cat facitly.

What it reported doing in 2025

Grimes County Animal Rescue is a fully operational shelter that serves the homeless animals of Grimes County by providing shelter, food, care, and ultimately facilitation their adoption into their final homes. The shelter also provides low-cost veterinary clinic services to the community to work at the core of the homeless animal crisis rural communities face.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% 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.
  • 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.7%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.8%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.61; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 71.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.7% of revenue deployed · 80.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $143K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.