House Rabbit Society
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 943061685
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Richmond, CA, United States
- Phone
- 5109707575
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $891,714
- Expenses
- $753,613
- Assets
- $1,486,413
- Liabilities
- $28,900
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Amber Tadena (Executive Director)
- Frank Christopher Beafore (Boardmember & President)
Highest reported compensation
- Amber Tadena (Executive Director): $87,718 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Promoting rabbit welfare and education since 1988. The HRS Bay Area location doubles as the training and education center that coordinates rescue efforts with more than 35 animal welfare groups in California who are not affiliates. The HRS Bay Area shelter facility is not a affiliate. It is, by-and-large, a self-sustaining HRS program that strives to improve adoption, education, medical, and rescue standards. Many of the materials created and distributed around the world via the brick and mortar are also collected through first-hand experience and in collaboration with our various volunteers including HRS Advocates, affiliates, and volunteers. House Rabbit Society is a 501C3 organization. EIN 94-3061685. Our mission is to save and improve do.
What it reported doing in 2025
Education: our education programs included free online classes in rabbit care and behavior; free hard-copy educational materials, mailed and handed out in vet clinics, at events, and at the Richmond, CA headquarters; and extensive information and online classes via our local and national websites. In addition, one issue of our magazine, House Rabbit Journal, was produced and distributed to members and others; 38 e-newsletters were emailed to supporters; 234 online and onsite classes were held. We engaged 2,329 people at educational outreach events. We assisted 101 shelters and humane societies with educational materials. Our licensed HRS educators provided local support and education in their communities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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: 65
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 69
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 68.5%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 74.9%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 15.5%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.97; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 11.6%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 68.5% of revenue deployed · 74.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $564K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
- 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.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.