Pigs Inc a Sanctuary

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550724626
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Shepherdstown, WV, USA
Phone
3042620080
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$271,343
Expenses
$358,485
Assets
$470,917
Liabilities
$3,715

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RON ALLISON (PRESIDENT)
  • MELISSA SUSKO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MELISSA SUSKO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $49,575 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Pigs, inc, a sanctuary is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes.the sanctuary is a place of refuge to abused, abandoned, neglected or unwanted animals. The sanctuary specializes in the care of pot-bellied and domestic pigs, but shelters other farm, equine and domestic animals as well. Typically, animals residing at the sanctuary have complicated medical and/or emotional needs, a history of abuse and/or neglect, diseases or ailments related to factory farming or genetic engineering, and are often considered "un-adoptable". The sanctuary seeks to find forever homes for many animals, but serves as a permanent home for five-hundred+ un-adoptable animals on any given day.pigs works to expose the cruelties of the domestic and farm animals through our educational tours and events, media exposure, participation with select animal protection agencies, government and private entities.

What it reported doing in 2016

Pigs animal sanctuary is a place of refuge for abused, abandoned, neglected or unwanted animals. Founded in 1992, pigs animal sanctuary is a true safety-net for a variety of animals, including potbelly and farm pigs, horses, turkeys, donkeys, cats, dogs, goats- we even have a llama and a cow. Today there are over 500 animals in our care, living in a safe haven. Animals who arrive at the sanctuary often have complicated medical or emotional needs, a history of abuse, neglect, or ailments related to factory farming or genetic engineering, and are often considered "un-adoptable." however, the sanctuary seeks to find forever loving homes for some of our animals. We need your help to continue providing this life-saving refuge for animals who need us for survival.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th 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: 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: 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -32.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.31; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.8%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -19.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $329K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.