Phoenix Animal Care Coalition PACC911

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205153613
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6028820590
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,411,770
Expenses
$963,797
Assets
$2,566,591
Liabilities
$-642

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BARI MEARS (President)
  • TINA LOPEZ (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHON JAVELOSA (Director): $70,000 total reported compensation
  • BARI MEARS (President): $31,200 total reported compensation
  • PENNY MCGINN (Treasurer): $26,348 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

PACC911 (Phoenix Animal Care Coalition) unites and supports pet rescue organizations throughout Arizona by fostering collaboration and providing critical resources that strengthen lifesaving efforts. Through large well promoted adoption events, a happy alternative to depressing shelters, educational outreach, and a vital medical assistance program which removes financial barriers, PACC911 has enabled rescue partners to save more lives and improve animal welfare in their communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

PACC Brings together the many animal welfare organizations from throughout Maricopa County in an interactive manner, providing opportunities for all to work together for the greater benefit of the animals. PACC911 focuses on assisting the rescue groups in four distinct ways; adoption evens, fundraising, education, and medical assistance through the new PACC911 medical fund.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 5
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.3%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 83.4%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.2%; rating input score 81; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 73.4%; rating input score 73; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 31.7%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.66; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.4%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.3% of revenue deployed · 83.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $804K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 29 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 40 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.