Petsmart Associate Assistance Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454101736
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
8004237387
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Emergency Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$812,579
Expenses
$401,142
Assets
$3,310,263
Liabilities
$325

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOANNE DWYER (PRESIDENT)
  • JEROME DEROUCHEY (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ERICK GOLDBERG (DIRECTOR)
  • LACEY BUNDY (DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID REDFIELD (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The petsmart associate assistance foundation (paaf) provides financial assistance and emergency support to associates during qualified, unforeseen hardships.

What it reported doing in 2025

The paaf provides financial assistance to current associates of petsmart llc, or its wholly owned subsidiaries, and their family members for qualified, unforeseen hardships including natural disaster, violent crime, illness or injury, personal emergencies and funeral expenses. In 2025, the paaf provided 141 grants to associates with the majority of support provided to associates impacted by natural disasters or being displaced from their homes as well as facing medical issues, accident or illness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.7%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 92%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th 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: 50.6%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.25; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.7% of revenue deployed · 92% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $369K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.