Huntsville Animal Service Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
820929609
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Huntsville, AL, USA
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$48,571
Expenses
$23,814
Assets
$123,388

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • John Fischer (Director)
  • Stefany McBride (Director)
  • Jennie Hudson (Director)

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

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

Overview

Mission

Huntsville Animal Service Organization HASF is organized to promote animal welfare and to operate exclusively for charitable and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501c3 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and to support the governing body of the City of Huntsville by preventing animal cruelty assisting in the enforcement of laws pertaining to animals aid in the return of lost or stolen animals promote the growth of education and sentiment favorable to the protection of animals reduce pet over-population assist in finding homes for pets and give care for shelter companions.

What it reported doing in 2025

Supplies Cat wheel from Amazon pallet jack from Sunbelt Rentals Dog & Cat Food Rural King Trolleys HAWS. Adoption Foster Expenses included milk replacement wet food micro-chips ID Tags logo products for event heating pads scale funnels tote bags food & dog leashes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 51%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.18; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.9% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.2% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $24K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.