Humane Animal Rescue of Pittsburgh

Legal name: Humane Animal Rescue

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
250325750
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2023
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, US
Phone
412-345-7300
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,761,192
Expenses
$12,109,897
Assets
$18,909,745
Liabilities
$1,970,139

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

Leadership & pay

44 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTINE ROBINETTE (PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH WILD (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARTIN CONNELY (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT (EXIT 5/24))
  • ANTHONY PARDO (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ARIELLA SAMSON (CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER): $449,846 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL CODY DIRECTOR OF (LEADERSHIP & LEGACY): $165,757 total reported compensation
  • AMY KALINAUSKAS (LEAD VETERINARIAN): $152,147 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Caring for animals, inspiring Communities

What it reported doing in 2024

Holding & adoption - provides food, shelter and temporary relief to homeless, stray, and abandoned animals making every effort to find them new homes or reunite them with their previous families. There is never a time limit on how long an animal stays on the adoption floor. The arl is an open door shelter providing care to an average of 8,000 animals annually.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 83.4%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.56; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 83.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 32 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $10.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $450K · 44 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $951K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.