Paws in Need Tulsa Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 843059872
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2019
- Location
- Tulsa, OK, USA
- Phone
- 9182843978
- Rating
- 92
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $147,468
- Expenses
- $132,240
- Assets
- $54,999
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Andrea Kyle (President/Acting Treasurer)
- Martha Ann Stiles (Vice-President)
People named in this filing
- Andrea Kyle (President/Acting Treasurer)
- Martha Ann Stiles (Vice-President)
- Michele Haugland (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
The purpose of Paws in Need Tulsa, Inc. is to provide comfort, care, and hope to the Tulsa area's homeless animal population by raising and distributing funds for: veterinary expenses, transport costs, supplies for fosters, boarding costs for animals awaiting transport, any other items or services deemed necessary to provide comfort and care to homeless animals while in the city shelter.
What it reported doing in 2025
Our transport program successfully transferred over 700 homeless animals in 2024 to out of state rescue partners where they are adopted into loving forever homes. The cost of our transport program includes van maintenance and insurance, gas, volunteer mileage reimbursements, hotel and food expenses for drivers, and travel crates, bedding, and other supplies as needed.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.
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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.9%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 93.6%; rating input score 94
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.3%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20.5% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.9% of revenue deployed · 93.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 6 filed program accomplishments · $124K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 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.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.