Hudson Paws Dog Rescue

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
333905384
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Hudson, NY, USA
Phone
5185677599
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$249,904
Expenses
$247,522
Assets
$11,076
Liabilities
$8,694

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sarah Shaw (Executive Director & Board President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kyrstine Gildersleeve (Operations Manager): $36,930 total reported compensation
  • Erin Reck (Managing Director & Board Member): $29,231 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Hudson Paws Dog Rescue is a nonprofit organization based in Hudson, New York, dedicated to rescuing, rehabilitating, and rehoming dogs in need throughout the Hudson Valley and all surrounding communities. Our purpose is to provide humane, compassionate care for dogs at riskthose who are abandoned, surrendered, neglected, or facing euthanasiawhile working to educate the public about rescue work and responsible pet ownership. We aim to be a great local adoption facility for our community members - a place that is welcoming where they can come meet their next furry family member.

What it reported doing in 2025

- Care and boarding expenses for the dogs in our facility (dog food, dog supplies, utilities, cleaning products, facility maintenance). Our numbers range between 20 and 30 dogs who benefit. There were 75 dogs adopted in 2025. The family size ranges, so we average about 150 people benefited from adopting.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $240.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.7%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.8% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $197K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $37K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.