Animal Behavior Society Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 366196868
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Glenview, IL, USA
- Phone
- 3128936585
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $541,157
- Expenses
- $848,131
- Assets
- $3,671,124
- Liabilities
- $233
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Emily Du Val (Past President)
- Beth Jakob (President)
People named in this filing
- Greg Grether (2nd Pres. Elect)
- Emily Du Val (Past President)
- Beth Jakob (President)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Promote and advance the scientific study of animal behavior, and creating an inclusive scientific environment that supports a diverse membership.
What it reported doing in 2024
Sponsored the organization's annual conference plus various workshops related to the study of animal behavior. The conference was held on-site in Baltimore, MD during July of 2025 as well as virtually and included over 650 participants from approximately 25 different countries. Workshops covered topics including: Collaborative fieldwork practices for Animal Behavior research in Latin America.Revitalizing Teaching and Learning: Strategies for Inclusivity and Active Learning.Weaving the Future of Animal Behavior (WFAB): A professional-development workshop for pre-tenure faculty and postdoctoral researchers in animal behavior.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 83% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 52
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: -56.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.33; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $779K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $125K reported
- Consistency: 22 of 25 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and grants
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- 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: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.