Houston Petset

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200800623
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7139606622
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,617,405
Expenses
$3,245,096
Assets
$1,201,243
Liabilities
$118,289

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TENA LUNDQUIST-FAUST (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • TAMA LUNDQUIST (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • SANDRA SMITH COOPER (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GENEVIEVE KEILLOR (VETERINARIAN): $150,000 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 petset is a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending the homelessness and suffering of companion animals.

What it reported doing in 2024

Houston petset partners with fido fixers to lease their mobile veterinary unit. Houston petset stations the mobile unit in underserved areas of houston, providing free spay and neuter procedures, basic vaccines, and microchips for owned pets. Additionally, houston petset supplies vouchers to owners for spay and neuter services at third party veterninary clinics and also funds one-day spay neuter events. These services are intended to reduce the number of unwanted litters and shelter intakes in areas of houston that experience high rates of animal surrender. The mobile unit served over 4,100 animals in 2024 and the other spay and neuter activities added an additional 3,300 animals for approximately 7,400 total animals spayed or neutered in 2024 through these houston petset programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 74%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 69.8%; rating input score 70; 19th 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -24%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.8% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.1% of revenue deployed · 74% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 40 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 39 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.
  • 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 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • 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.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.