Pets in Need of Greater Cincinnati Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455512473
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5137617387
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,173,333
Expenses
$1,235,521
Assets
$1,852,362
Liabilities
$63,222

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Pamela McKie (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Pamela McKie (Executive Director): $152,615 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide affordable, high-quality veterinary care to allow individuals and families of limited means to enjoy benefits of healthy and responsible pet ownership. Anyone who wants to share a loving home with a pet should have access to resources that make keeping the pet possible.

What it reported doing in 2025

Affordable Primary Veterinary Care: Pets In Need operates a low-cost clinic that serves pet families who meet qualifying income perimeters. There are no geographic restrictions; clients come from the entire OH/KY/IN tristate area. As of 12/31/25 more than 4000 pet families were served. Services include basic wellness and preventative services; acute sick care; treatment of chronic conditions such as diabetes or renal failure; monthly flea and heartworm prevention; and compassionate end-of-life care. Price is kept low through grants, donations and other philanthropic giving. Additional subsidies are available for those who qualify such as the homeless, veterans, disabled and/or working with a social service organization who helps offset their fees. Services are never free.

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 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 64.6%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.4%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.9% of revenue deployed · 64.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $798K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.