Humane Society of the Sierra Foothills
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 320282752
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013, Form 990-N 2009
- Location
- Auburn, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5308236828
- Rating
- 53
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $359,909
- Expenses
- $345,158
- Assets
- $1,975,865
- Liabilities
- $6,278
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARILYN JASPER (President)
- SHERRY COUZENS (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- MARILYN JASPER (President)
- SHERRY COUZENS (Vice President)
- SARA NIELSON (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To prevent animal abuse and neglect, enforce the anti-cruelty laws of the State of California and promote the wellbeing of animals.
What it reported doing in 2024
Since 2007, the Humane Society of the Sierra Foothills has been enforcing Californias anti-cruelty laws that protect animals from abuse and neglect and serve the public.Throughout the years, weve remained passionate about serving the people and animals in Placer County and throughout the State at the highest level of professionalism, responding to animal cruelty complaints, disseminating animal care information to the public or providing temporary animal assistance, we continually strive for excellence.The important part is, we believe that protecting and stopping animals from cruel treatment is more about educating animal owners than it is about enforcing animal cruelty laws. In most cases, we're helping cooperative owners by providing pet food, equipment, and other resources with personalized and professional service. However, when owners persist in treating their animals cruelly, we'll never walk away from helping those animals.HSSF Humane Officers investigations range from private individuals and abusive entertainment activities (such as specific rodeo events) to puppy mills. Officers work closely with the Placer County District Attorneys office and the courts to assist in the prosecution of animal abusers. HSSF Humane Officers continue to respond and investigate animal cruelty reports. They also reach out to the community in various ways to increase awareness of the scope of humane animal law enforcement.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 87% 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and total assets are large relative to annual expenses, but may not be spendable cash. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 39
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 30
- Sustainability: 61
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 44.6%; rating input score 45
- Program expense ratio: 40.3%; rating input score 40
- Fundraising efficiency: $1.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: 4.1%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.72; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 44.6% of revenue deployed · 40.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $139K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.