Desert Dog Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
990754114
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Phone
2032577129
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$203,498
Expenses
$147,247
Assets
$61,196
Liabilities
$4,945

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIA CORRELL (PRESIDENT)
  • COURTNEY AGAR (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIA CORRELL (PRESIDENT): $6,231 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To make shelter dogs with medical needs more adoptable by providing the necessary medical funds.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization donated over $15,000 to assist 15 dogs with urgent medical needs who were in the care of other rescue organizations. This financial support ensured these dogs received critical veterinary treatment and had a greater chance of successful adoption. Through our medical foster program in partnership with the maricopa county animal care and control shelter, we helped 95 dogs who were ineligible for foster placement due to untreated medical conditions. Many of these dogs were at risk of euthanasia. We coordinated and funded necessary offsite medical care, enabling them to recover in foster homes and eventually be adopted. We also rescued 40 dogs directly from local shelter euthanasia lists. These dogs were placed into foster homes and received comprehensive veterinary care, preparing them for successful adoption and long-term placement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 85% 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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.8%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 91.4%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th 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: 27.6%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.8% of revenue deployed · 91.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $135K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $6K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.