Miami Veterinary Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
591911775
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Phone
3052792000
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$797,624
Expenses
$685,472
Assets
$243,026
Liabilities
$12,916

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IRVING LERNER DVM (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • IRVING LERNER DVM (PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT PANE DVM (OFFICER)
  • CLAUDIA VALDERRAMA DVM (SECRERTARY)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To increase access to veterinary care, promote responsible pet ownership, strengthen the human animal bond and support reduction of pet overpopulation in our community

What it reported doing in 2025

Spay-neuter services - miami veterinary foundation and miami dade animal service partner together to create greater access to spay neuter services for the low income pet owning community and to create more volume of free spay neuter services available for community cats, as well as assisting mdas approved rescue partner organizations with spay neuter services. Qualified low income pet owners are provided spay neuter services for their pets with minimal co-payment for the services. Proof of low income status must be provided to the participating veterinarian. Low income owners are qualified as those who can prove they receive benefits from one of the following: food stamps, medicaid, supplemental security income (ssi), temporary assistance for needed families (tanf), jackson memorial hospital clinic care. In each case, the eligible owner must provide a copy of the letter stating that they are entitled to the above benefits, and show that the dates still apply and are current. Under the community cat program, community cats are spayed or neutered at no cost to the community member who brings in the cats for services. Cats have their ears notched, spay or neuter surgery, receive a rabies vaccine, all at no charge. This program has no income qualification. Anyone wishing to help with community cats may utilize this service at no charge.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 1
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 14.1%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.