MSPCA-Angell

Legal name: Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042103597
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
617-522-7282
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$152,387,415
Expenses
$137,496,655
Assets
$293,468,375
Liabilities
$47,590,258

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

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NEAL LITVACK (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • NEAL LITVACK (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $746,084 total reported compensation
  • DR NICHOLAS TROUT (SURGEON): $595,071 total reported compensation
  • DR RUTH A VAN HATTEN (RADIOLOGIST): $575,239 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the MSPCA-Angell is to protect animals, relieve their suffering, advance their health and welfare, prevent cruelty, and work for a just and compassionate society.

What it reported doing in 2025

Each year our four animal care and adoption centers take in thousands of homeless animals including cats, dogs, rabbits, birds, reptiles, horses, goats, sheep, cows, pigs, various farm birds, guinea pigs, ferrets, hamsters, gerbils, mice and rats. In 2025, a total of 11,573 animals found homes through adoption, transfers to other organizations, reuniting pets with their owners and surrender prevention programs. Our network of volunteers helps us provide individual attention to every animal in our care. 1,251 animals who needed extra time to heal went through our foster care program and 1,104 volunteers donated 91,311 hours to help with animal care, special events and office work. Our behavior program provided more than 4,000 pet owners with training, agility classes, and individual behavior consultations for their animals. 2,207 children and adults participated in humane education programs at each of our adoption centers, including summer camp, reading programs and junior volunteer programs. A total 11,181 animals in underserved communities were sterilized through our low cost spay/neuter program and a total of 15,634 animals received subsidized medical care treatments at our community wellness clinics.in addition to finding homes for homeless animals, our adoption centers strive to provide their surrounding communities with animal-related information and assistance in order to help create a more compassionate society. During 2025: 3,268 animals received end of life care through our pet loss service, including 51 burials at hillside acre pet cemetery132 farm animals benefited by our equine outreach program at nevins farm that provides temporary financial aid to farm animals and equine owners struggling to provide care during a temporary financial hardship over 3.6 million pet meals provided to needy families through our community outreach services4,858 animals transported from the south to Massachusetts as part of our relocation program6,246 new animals met by our community outreach teams

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 69% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.5%; rating input score 90; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.6%; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95%; rating input score 95; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 9.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.13; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 12 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 83.6% of revenue deployed · 87.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $120M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $746K · 32 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.9M reported
  • Consistency: 47 of 49 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.