Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237259499
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mesa, AZ, USA
Phone
4808548950
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Wildlife Sanctuary, Refuge

Reported finances

Revenue
$454,383
Expenses
$392,089
Assets
$1,422,356
Liabilities
$73,609

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Terrence Baehre (President)
  • Sam Gorton (Vice President)
  • William Davis (Past President)

People named in this filing

  • Terrence Baehre (President)
  • Sam Gorton (Vice President)
  • David McCasland (Treasurer)

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

To promote management of bighorn sheep to increase their population in the state. The goal is to establish vital self sustaining bighorn sheep populations throughout all suitable historic ranges. The Society develops waters in sheep areas and conducts a seminar for hunters.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Society conducted its annual Ram Recognition dinner, and Youth and Sheep Hunters Clinics, providing vital information about Arizona bighorn sheep to 120 tag holders and their hunting partners. The clinic speakers discuss successful and ethical hunting methods, necessary equipment, and expected terrain and habitat. The clinic is conducted free of charge to tag holders and the general public.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.6%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 67.3%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.5%; rating input score 98; 57th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.7%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.63; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.6% of revenue deployed · 67.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $264K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • 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 32/100.