Palo Alto Humane Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941358297
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Palo Alto, CA, USA
Phone
6504241901
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$522,954
Expenses
$1,007,210
Assets
$2,949,506
Liabilities
$23,935

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT ARMBRUST (CEO)
  • Andrea Gandolofo (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT ARMBRUST (CEO): $160,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To alleviate the suffering of animals, increase public sensitivity to animal issues and elevate the status of animals in our society through innovative programs in intervention, education and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

The education program in the classroom and in the community furnishes an essential foundation for successful advocacy and intervention on behalf of the well-being of animals. Classroom teaching presentations were made to groups and schools in the san francisco mid-peninsula area. Presentations also were made in cooperation with the palo alto city's animal services center. The web-based human education curriculum, mow wow animals, was completed for grades k-2 to help teachers fulfill the California mandate to teach humane education to all California school children. Disaster preparedness resources for pet and farm animals were provided to the public and disseminated through government and private preparedness networks in spanish and english.

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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 59.8%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -92.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.93; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.9%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 59.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $603K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 8 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.