PAWS Placing Animals Within Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
561687336
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Bryson City, NC, USA
Phone
8284217434
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$229,234
Expenses
$402,365
Assets
$518,100
Liabilities
$2,701

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Yvette McClure (Chairman)
  • Deb Wolfe (Board)
  • Jill Cooper (Board)

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

No Kill Amimal Shelter and Spay Neuter Program and Community Support for pets

What it reported doing in 2024

Sheltered abandoned animals and provided medical care. Assisted in providing dog houses, blankets, and hay to animals in our community to families that could not provide these items for their animals. Supplied cat and dog food to animal owners who were unable to feed their animals. Our community support objective is to help animals stay in their home by providing the items needed to make this a reality. Weve provided vet care, surgeries, love and a safe haven to numerous cats and dogs this year that came to us with life threatening injuries or illness and ensured that they got the medical care they needed and deserved.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 82% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -75.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.29; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $361K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.