Love On 4 Paws Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 954638836
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
- Location
- Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3105472200
- Rating
- 52
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $97,619
- Expenses
- $66,146
- Assets
- $335,437
- Liabilities
- $197
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SUNI COOKSON (President)
Highest reported compensation
- MERCEDES LEGASPI (ADMIN ASSISTANT): $18,175 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Love on 4 Paws, Inc. is an organization dedicated to the principle that animals can be used as an effective therapeutic means to assist in the treatments of patients. both young and old, suffering from the depressive and painful effects of their illness. To accomplish this goal, we send many teams of volunteers and their animals to children's hospitals, schools for patients with specialized needs, adult hospitals, and facilities for the elderly. The purpose of these visits is to let our animals do what they do best; decreases loneliness, isolation and pain. Our program also assists the hospital personnel in identifying those areas where animal assisted therapy can provide them with another tool to enhance the comfort of their patients and thus, increase the overall quality of their care.
What it reported doing in 2024
Love on 4 paws, inc. Is an organization dedicated to the principle that animals can be used as an effective therapeutic means to assist in the treatment of patients, both young and old, suffering from the depressive and painful effects of their illnesses. To accomplish this goal, we send our many teams of volunteers and their animals to children's hospitals, schools for patients with specialized needs, adult hospitals, and facilities for the elderly. The purpose of these visits is to let our animals do what they do best: decrease loneliness, isolation and pain. Our program also assists hospital personnel in identifying those areas where animal assisted therapy can provide them with another tool to enhance the comfort of their patients and thus, increase the overall quality of their care.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 51
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 0
- Sustainability: 58
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 40.6%; rating input score 41
- Program expense ratio: 57.1%; rating input score 57
- Fundraising efficiency: $48.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- 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: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 32.2%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.07; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 27.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 40.6% of revenue deployed · 57.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $38K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $18K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.