The Humane Society of Elkhart County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
350996134
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bristol, IN, USA
Phone
5744754732
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,811,417
Expenses
$2,901,570
Assets
$10,295,703
Liabilities
$173,795

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TIM PORTOLESE (PRESIDENT)
  • DR AMANDA HAVENS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT LAROY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT LAROY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $124,242 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The humane society of elkhart county is dedicated to promoting respect and responsibility for all animals and to the prevention of suffering and neglect through education, public service and adoption.

What it reported doing in 2024

The humane society of elkhart county is the only organization in the county that serves as animal control to address the variety of animal welfare issues. As an open admission shelter, the humane society accepts all relinquished owned animals from individuals who reside in elkhart county and all animals that are seized, abandoned or strays collected by the humane society's animal control officers, law enforcement agencies within the county and those turned in by elkhart county citizens. The humane society provides services which include adoption of animals; cruelty/neglect investigations and prosecution of such; community education; coordination of lost and found pet reports; collaborations with other animal rescue organizations; response to injured and ill wildlife; responding to public safety relevant to aggressive and dangerous animals; fulfilling local, county, state and federal animal laws and ordinances.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. 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: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.7%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $59.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.7%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.55; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.7% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $124K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.