Making a Difference Now

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271250051
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Lexington, KY, USA
Phone
8595592466
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$43,767
Expenses
$36,352
Assets
$59,330
Liabilities
$150

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Diane Parrish (President)

People named in this filing

  • Barbara Jones (Treasurer)
  • Ruth Hufnagle (Board Member)
  • Michelle Jude (Board Member)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mission: Rescue animals, educate communities, advocate for animal welfare. We exist to help animals and the people who love and care for them.

What it reported doing in 2025

Third Program Service Accomplishment: Advocacy. Advocacy is a slog in Kentucky, with our state ranking 47th in the Animal Legal Defense Fund's ranking of animal protection laws. Even more sad than our current ranking is the fact that 47th is progress since we ranked dead last for over 10 years. While hard, advocating for better laws and better enforcement is essential if we are to help Kentucky's animals and people. An excellent case in point is the state statute that was passed in 2024. Dubbed Ethan's Law for the wonderful dog who captured hearts all over the state as he recovered from severe neglect, the statute allows a person to be charged with a Class D felony the first time and every time they torture a dog or cat. It is an important deterrent, and it is also the first substantial upgrade to our animal protection laws in years. Bipartisan support for Ethan's Law offers hope for additional progress. Of course, passage of the law is the first step. Enforcement must back it up. In too many cases and areas of our state, enforcement has been slow to keep pace, and MADN and our many excellent advocacy partners continue to call out lax enforcement and encourage community members to make their voices heard. In addition to our advocacy partnership work in support of and opposition to state statutes and their full enforcement, MADN and our partners support local ordinances as well. Six Kentucky communities, including MADN's home community of Lexington, passed humane retail pet sales ordinances to prohibit the sale of cats and dogs in pet stores and outdoor venues. These are huge successes for our communities because pet stores that continue to sell pets, rather than work with local rescues and shelters to showcase rescued pets for adoption, contribute mightily to the pet overpopulation crisis. They support the horrors of puppy/kitten mills and often sell ill, ill-bred, under-socialized puppies and kittens at predatory pricing and lending rates. These six communities said no thanks to these business practices and the cruelty of the puppy/kitten mill-to-pet store cruelty pipeline. We fully expect more communities to join them, and MADN and animal advocates throughout our state will continue to support these efforts and to oppose state and national efforts to overturn and preempt local communities' ability to establish animal welfare standards for their own communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.9%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -28.5% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.1% of revenue deployed · 85.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $31K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 12 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.