Mississippi Spay and Neuter (Span)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202938077
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Richland, MS, USA
Phone
6014202438
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$814,754
Expenses
$734,533
Assets
$871,171
Liabilities
$83,813

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHARON GARNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JULIE PARKS (PRESIDENT)
  • CAMILLE WRIGHT (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHARON GARNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $59,047 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Promoting animal welfare issues that protect the overall physical and psychological well-being of animals in Mississippi and conducting targeted spay & neuter program.

What it reported doing in 2025

Outreach services program - Mississippi spay and neuter (veterinary) program gives pet owners access to low-cost spay and neuter services for their dogs and cats at the big fix clinic, a high-volume spay/neuter clinic. The big fix clinic's targeted efforts help reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats that subsequently end up homeless, neglected, and euthanized in the jackson metro area. Also, in this program, ms span operates a fixed location in richland, ms, which is centrally located in Mississippi to enable a greater number of people to have access to our spay and neuter services. During 2025 we successfully spayed and neutered 3768 animals this year, preventing thousands of unwanted litters.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.

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: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.19; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $561K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $59K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.