Paw Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461282359
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Emeryville, CA, USA
Phone
5103903488
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$244,770
Expenses
$282,820
Assets
$530,302
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JILL POSENER (DIRECTOR): $60,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Paw fund provides free and low cost wellness veterinary services to low income and no income pet owners in the east bay, covering two counties, alameda and contra costa. We provide a once a month mobile clinc where over 150 pets are seen each month. Our veterinarian is able to diagnose and treat minor medical conditions, or we refer the pet owner to a full service clinic and assist in funding the care. Occasionally, we are able to assist with life saving emergency medical care. We also arrange weekly outreach events to high risk neighborhoods, homeless encampments and assisted living residences. These outreach events reach hundreds of pets whose owners are unable to travel to our main monthly clinics. Vaccines, de-wormers, flea control, and microchips are provided at all events, and animals are signed up for free or pay what you can spay or neuter surgeries through our partner vets across the region. We provide transport to and from the vet if needed.

What it reported doing in 2024

Foster & adoption services, owner surrender and rehoming, client outreach & transportation: many of our clients struggle economically and many lose their housing. Having to give up the family pet is a heartbreaking consequence. Our program provides a safe place for their pets to go, instead of an animal shelter, and new longterm homes are found. Through careful screening of adopters we fostered then adopted over 100 animals during the year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.3%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.5%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.88; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.2%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $264K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.