Montana Spay-neuter Task Force

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363957457
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Butte, MT, USA
Phone
4066403182
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$42,426
Expenses
$65,411
Assets
$240,196
Liabilities
$4,100

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Albert Dorsett (President)

People named in this filing

  • Albert Dorsett (President)
  • Barbara Gregovich (Treasurer)
  • Carly Dagenhardt (Secretary)

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

Reverse universal acceptance of killing as a solution to pet overpopulation through education, low cost spay and neuter and community involvement.

What it reported doing in 2025

Montana Spay Neuter Task Force (MTSNTF) continues to offer spay/neuter aid to veterinarians, community groups, individuals and shelters. In 2025, MTSNTF paid costs associated with over 1,310 cats and dogs receiving surgery through a certificate program or by direct pay to veterinarians at reduced rates.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.6%; rating input score 94

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -54.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.67; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.9% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $61K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.