Houston Pets Alive

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465455638
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
8322631268
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,141,994
Expenses
$1,173,194
Assets
$799,699
Liabilities
$231,766

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Noelle Delgado (Executive Director)
  • Shannon Parker (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Shannon Parker (Executive Director): $109,616 total reported compensation
  • Noelle Delgado (Executive Director): $25,747 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Houston Pets Alive! s (HPA!) mission is to save the lives of at-risk companion cats and dogs and find them loving homes.

What it reported doing in 2024

HPA! Rescue/Lifesaving: Through our Rescue! program, we partner with local shelters to save dogs & cats most at-risk due to overcrowding, medical needs, or limited resources. Animals entering our program receive veterinary care & are placed into foster homes or our pet store partner locations until adopted. We also support local shelters through our Adopt Together! program by providing on-site adoption counseling & customer service support to reduce adoption barriers, improve the adopter experience, & increase live outcomes. Additionally, our Shelters Save! program is both a training program & a direct lifesaving effort, offering hands-on staff training & mentorship at local shelters, along with collaborative adoption events that directly move animals into homes. Collectively, our programs save the lives of more than 3,000 animals annually.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 62.8%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th 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: 64.7%; rating input score 65; 31st 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: 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: -2.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65% of revenue deployed · 62.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $736K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.