Friends of the Palm SpringsAnimal Shelter
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 330731853
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Palm Springs, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7604165718
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,890,501
- Expenses
- $6,969,865
- Assets
- $5,195,690
- Liabilities
- $964,336
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Daniel Rossi (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Daniel Rossi (Executive Director): $193,045 total reported compensation
- Dr Philip Caldwel (Veterinarian): $176,100 total reported compensation
- Barton Verry (Development Director): $112,336 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We are dedicated to building a community responsible for pet stewardship and humane treatment of animals.
What it reported doing in 2025
Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter Friends is a nonprofit 501c3, working tirelessly on behalf of animals since 1996, fundraising, educating, and advocating for animals in need. On November 1, 2012, Friends assumed operations of the City of Palm Springs Animal Shelter. This partnership with the City to operate the shelter paved the way for a new and humane way of caring for shelter pets in the community. Committed to operating as a humane and compassionate animal care and adoption center, the shelter does not euthanize animals for space or for length of stay. As a public, open admissions shelter, Friends provides a safe haven for all animals, those who are readily adoptable, as well as those who require rehabilitation, training, and minor to severe medical treatment. The Palm Springs Animal Shelter is the only public shelter in the Coachella Valley operating under the no-kill philosophy, which, at times, creates a tremendous strain on operations. But we wouldnt do it any other way. Friends depends on the community to adopt, foster, volunteer, donate, and most of all, to believe that by working together, we can save lives. Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter: * takes in lost, stray, abandoned, neglected, abused, and relinquished pets * provides quality medical care and socialization and enrichment to all animals entering the shelter, including neonatal puppies and kittens, and senior and hospice pets, both in the shelter and in loving foster homes * works to find all pets loving forever homes through an affordable, comprehensive yet convenient adoption process, focused on finding the right family for each pet * reunites lost pets with their guardians * provides dog licenses to Palm Springs residents * operates a weekly public low-cost vaccine clinic * provides low-cost microchips to the community * provides low cost/no cost spay neuter services to the entire Coachella Valley through our Fix A Friend program * operates a community Pet Food Bank to help low income, disabled, and/or infirmed Coachella Valley residents feed their beloved pets * manages a Trap-Neuter-Return TNR program, helping to humanely reduce the number of free-roaming cats in the Coachella Valley thereby reducing the number of cats entering the Palm Springs Animal Shelter as well as the Riverside County Animal Shelter * serves as a resource for humane education in the Coachella Valley and beyond, with learning opportunities for animal advocates and volunteers of all ages.
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 99% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1.2%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $193K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $229K reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.