Two Pups Wellness Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
862596024
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Phone
6026209543
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$381,991
Expenses
$367,424
Assets
$664,622
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY HALEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY HALEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $42,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We provide a vital community resource by giving financial assistance through our shelters and rescues to those animals who have been injured, neglected and/or abandoned that are in need of life-saving care.

What it reported doing in 2025

Two pups wellness fund established multiple approaches to assist animals: the emergency relief fund provides special funding and emergency support to qualified animal shelters and rescues. It allows our partnering shelters and rescues to apply for assistance when their medical funds are entirely depleted. This support helps cover emergency medication, daily prescribed medications and medical pilot projects which support animals in need. In 2025 we provided support for 485 animals.project get out addresses the abundance of dogs waiting on adoption and heading towards the euthanasia list due to kennel stress, deterioration, signs of sickness, loneliness, or (see schedule o) when the shelters need to make space. To save these dog's lives, project get out pledges $300 to qualifying rescues that pull these overlooked and abandoned dogs from the county shelter. We assisted 214 animals in leaving the shelter environment.our medical and surgical care program offers rescues and shelters case-by-case support for dogs and cats requiring medical attention - from basic diagnostic and disease treatment to specialized surgeries. The goal is to relieve suffering, restore health, and increase adoptability. We assisted 318 animals. Return to owner microchip program (rto). This program reduces shelter intake and reunites dogs with their families through microchip support and access. This program helps lost pets return home quickly and safely. 630 pets received microchips in 2025.during 2025, we assisted 1,647 animals to reach happy, healthy and safe lives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.2%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 87.1%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 70.2%; rating input score 70; 49th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 3.8%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.81; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.9% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -14.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.2% of revenue deployed · 87.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $320K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $42K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 18 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.