Vanderpump Dog Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 811263828
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3238523647
- Rating
- 52
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,114,218
- Expenses
- $1,080,534
- Assets
- $430,232
- Liabilities
- $44,796
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Paola Pierantoni (Director): $67,064 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The specific purpose of the corporation shall include protection of dogs and prevention of cruelty towards dogs. The corporation will undertake the activities of raising donations and funds from donors, which will be used to rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome dogs, both domestically and internationally, as well as to fund their medical care, vaccinations, spay and neuter.
What it reported doing in 2024
Grooming and adoption services - conducted exams, hospital bills, and grooming services for helping dogs to be health and ready for adoption. All dogs rescued are provided medical treatment and grooming services prior to adoption. Revenue is derived from adoption fees of rescued dogs and grooming fees from dogs brought in by general public.rescued dogs are then rehomed to qualified and caring invididuals looking to adopt rescue dogs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 52
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 6
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58.8%; rating input score 59
- Program expense ratio: 57.9%; rating input score 58
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.2%; rating input score 98; 46th 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; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 24% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 58.8% of revenue deployed · 57.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $625K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $67K · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
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 59/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.