Pets Unlimited

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941358298
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4155636700
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,452,371
Expenses
$5,590,507
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUZANNE TROXEL (PRESIDENT)
  • SALLY WORTMAN THRU 91313 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINE LUNDY (VETERINARY SERVICES): $156,608 total reported compensation
  • SALLY WORTMAN THRU 91313 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $146,182 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS MASON (VETERINARY SERVICES): $144,874 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Pets unlimited raises money for cats and dogs in need by running a state of the art veterinary center and through donations from people who care about animals.

What it reported doing in 2013

Animal humane and related veterinary hospital services and operation of public 24-hour animal humane and treatment center, low-cost spay/neuter, emergency and vaccine programs.effective march 1, 2014, pets unlimited merged with the san francisco society for the prevention of cruelty to animals ("sf spca"). The sf spca is the surviving entity of the merger; the sf spca will assume the assets and the liabilities of pets unlimited, pets unlimited will have representation on the board of directors of the merged entity and operations will continue under the sf spca name.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 89.2%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: -2.5%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.3%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -23.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.4% of revenue deployed · 89.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $142K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.