Paws on Death Row Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 931993461
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Sewell, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 6302902635
- Rating
- 32
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,448,115
- Expenses
- $3,392,067
- Assets
- $56,048
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Dina Petruzelli (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Dina Petruzelli (President): $78,000 total reported compensation
- Dina Baseless (Secretary): $36,400 total reported compensation
- Natalie Foderaro (Director): $15,600 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Saving animals from being euthanized.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
REVIEW - 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: 3
- Transparency & Controls: 53
- Accountability: 68
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 1.9%; rating input score 2
- Program expense ratio: 2%; rating input score 2
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 1.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 1.9% of revenue deployed · 2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $67K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 38 of 42 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 2/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.