Providing for Paws
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 371633668
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2012
- Location
- Redford, MI, USA
- Phone
- 7342371812
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $72,031
- Expenses
- $65,902
- Assets
- $71,922
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHELLE DOUCETTE (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- MICHELLE DOUCETTE (PRESIDENT)
- MARGARET GRABENHORST (TREASURER)
- DEE STUMPO (SECRETARY)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The organization's primary mission is to help pets stay in their family homes. When necessary, the organization rescues animals and places them in loving homes, either directly or through other rescue groups.
What it reported doing in 2025
During 2025 providing for paws adopted out 173 dogs/puppies/cats and kittens. Providing for paws is doing trap, neuter and release (tnr) again, and has kept numerous litters in 2025. We often assist other cat rescues in their tnr efforts as well as taking on cats or kittens from these projects.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 74.8%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 81.7%; rating input score 82
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8.5%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 74.8% of revenue deployed · 81.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $54K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 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.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.