Greysave Co Rich Pisani

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205442395
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Rancho Mirage, CA, USA
Phone
8188027620
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$155,581
Expenses
$254,371
Assets
$577,688
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUDITH D'AMICO (Vice President)
  • SANDY HIGHTOWER (President)

People named in this filing

  • JUDITH D'AMICO (Vice President)
  • JULIE MARENCO (Secretary)
  • SANDY HIGHTOWER (President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

In 2024 96 greyhounds entered our program. Greysave placed82 locally and 14 were transported to other 501c groups in Arizona.the primary purpose of greysave is to facilitate the adoptions of greyhounds, those whose racing careers have ended, and those who have been abandoned or who are unwanted. To positively impact the welfare of greyhounds, to educate the public about greyhounds, their appeal as pets, and their care.

What it reported doing in 2024

All dogs that come into our program are health checked, spayed/neutered, teeth cleaned, wormed, vaccinated, bloodwork done and placed into foster homes. Most of the hounds were healthy. Those with injuries such as a broken leg are treated before placement. Once the dogs have completed our foster home program they are matched up with pre-screened families for adoption.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.5%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83%; rating input score 83; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -63.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.27; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $248K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.