Pulaski County Humane Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611477866
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Crocker, MO, USA
Phone
5737362088
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$62,701
Expenses
$52,138
Assets
$82,260
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AGNES KAVALECZ-HORSTMANN (PRESIDENT)
  • KRISTINE STONE (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRITTANY BAY (SHELTER MANAGER): $14,560 total reported compensation
  • FARRAH OVERMAN (SHELTER MANAGER): $8,960 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

All necessary care for stray animals and future adoption of said animals

What it reported doing in 2024

Loving paws adoption center is open 5 days a week. We have 11 indoor and 3 outdoor runs for dogs and an outside play yard for dogs. We have enclosures for 13 cats. Supplies needed to operate the shelter include cat & dog food, food and water bowls, bedding, kitty litter, litter boxes, collars, leashes, cleaning supplies, stc. Repairs 7 maintenance on our hvac unit, washer, dryer, mowers, weedeaters, and indoor/outdoor runs are ongoing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.5%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 65.5%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.58; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 45.1%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.5% of revenue deployed · 65.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $34K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $15K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.