Midcoast Humane

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
016021200
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Brunswick, ME, USA
Phone
2074491366
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,359,553
Expenses
$3,916,769
Assets
$10,062,313
Liabilities
$1,001,103

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JESSICA TOWNSEND (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MENOLLY COTE (MEDICAL DIRECTOR): $153,982 total reported compensation
  • JESSICA TOWNSEND (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $83,806 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Midcoast humane protects and cares for animals in need, supports the people who love them, and strengthens our community through shared resources, compassion, and engagement.

What it reported doing in 2025

Midcoast humane operates two shelters, one in edgecomb and one in brunswick, Maine. The animal population in these shelters varies widely. On december 31, 2025, mh housed 259 animals. During 2025, midcoast humane adopted out 2,576 dogs, cats and small animals, returned 337 missing animals to their owners, took in962 strays and 1,273 owner surrenders. Midcoast housed 131 animals involved in court cases. Midcoast humane contracts with 39 municipalities, providing support with strays, surrenders and seizures. Midcoast humane operates a transport program and transported 479 cats, 445 dogs, 1 mouse and 1 rabbit from other locations, inside and outside the state of Maine, to midcoast humane to find their forever homes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.9%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 84.1%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.9%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.57; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.9% of revenue deployed · 84.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $154K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.