Arthropoda Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
994569321
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$515,906
Expenses
$136,474
Assets
$468,390
Liabilities
$56,427

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT FISCHER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MAL GRAHAM (TREASURER)
  • ROBERT FISCHER (PRESIDENT)
  • CAROL KLEIN (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Supports research on the welfare of animals in phylum arthropoda. Supports research directly through its grantmaking. We serve as a hub for researchers, grantmakers, and industry stakeholders, sharing information on strategic directions for research on arthropod welfare.

What it reported doing in 2025

Weve created and advertised two rfps per year (https://www.arthropodafoundation.org/call-for-proposals). Weve distributed $250k to 15 highly rigorous research projects with a high potential to shape future science and inform real-world decision-making. Weve met with numerous invertebrate farming facilities and producers on their highest priority welfare issues. This will allow us to build knowledge on the highest priority interventions, and improve our ability to identify and propose impactful research projects. Weve met with several scientists interested in working on invertebrate welfare, and organized a meeting for insect producers to share knowledge on how to improve welfare practices at insect farms. Engaged researchers at invertebrate welfare conferences to identify funding opportunities, share field priorities, and expand the research community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 71% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 26.4%; rating input score 26
  • Program expense ratio: 99.7%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th 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: 97.2%; rating input score 97; 48th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 73.5%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.43; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 26.4% of revenue deployed · 99.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $136K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 26/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.