Paws of Honor Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475643489
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Williamsburg, VA, USA
Phone
7034038281
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Veterinary Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,592,256
Expenses
$9,807,332
Assets
$2,647,736
Liabilities
$442,767

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT F YOUNGBLOOD (PRESIDENT)
  • CASSIE BROWNE (VICE PRESIDENT/TREASURER)

People named in this filing

  • ROBERT F YOUNGBLOOD (PRESIDENT)
  • CASSIE BROWNE (VICE PRESIDENT/TREASURER)
  • MARK V DRUMMOND (DIRECTOR)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The goal of paws of honor (poh) is to provide veterinary care and products at no charge for retired military and law enforcement k-9's that have served our country.

What it reported doing in 2024

Medical services to retired k-9's who have served our country. Retired k-9's deserve accessible, high quality veterinary care in return for their commitment and sacrifice for our country and the monetary burden associated with veterinary care should not fall on the shoulders of the officer, handler and owner once the k-9 has been decommissioned. During 2024, the organization provided medical services and products with a retail value of $1,452,492 and since 2016 the organization has provided veterinary services and products with a retail value over $6,286,185 at no cost to the handler.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 23
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 24.8%; rating input score 25
  • Program expense ratio: 26.6%; rating input score 27
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 34.9% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 24.8% of revenue deployed · 26.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.2M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 25/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.