Watauga Humane Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237128331
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boone, NC, USA
Phone
8282647865
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,090,637
Expenses
$1,398,849
Assets
$4,706,247
Liabilities
$760,916

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAULA KATERS (PRESIDENT)
  • KRISTAN COCKERILL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JUSTIN VANDER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 09/2024)

Highest reported compensation

  • ASHLEE YEPEZ (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $60,152 total reported compensation
  • JUSTIN VANDER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 09/2024): $48,693 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 purpose of the watauga humane society is to provide the following: a well-equipped and appropriately staffed facility where the citizens of watauga county can bring unwanted or abandoned animals; relief of suffering among animals; provisions of food, shelter, medical care and love to homeless animals while they await permanent homes; assistance with control of unwanted animals by offering low-cost spay/neuter services; education to the public about responsible animal ownership and care.

What it reported doing in 2024

The animal shelter provides shelter for unwanted animals. Spay and neuter services, microchip clinics, medical care for shelter animals, and education programs for the public regarding animal care and prevention of abuse.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 83.5%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28.3%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.36; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.8%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 83.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.