Big Life Foundation USA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273455389
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Ridgefield, WA, USA
Phone
9713223326
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Sanctuary, Refuge

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,890,389
Expenses
$10,190,336
Assets
$3,864,833
Liabilities
$70,396

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIM SCHWALB (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KIM SCHWALB (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $194,534 total reported compensation
  • ALEXANDRA HOSTETTER (DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR): $166,791 total reported compensation
  • AMY BAIRD (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $162,627 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Partnering with local communities to protect iconic species and conserve habitat in the greater amboseli ecosystem.

What it reported doing in 2025

Human-wildlife conflict: big life foundation USA funds collaborative programs to help mitigate the negative impact of human-wildlife interaction, such as mitigating crop-raiding by hungry elephants, both for the people and the animals through the construction of wildlife exclusion fences to keep elephants out of crops. In 2025, 55 crop raids were prevented. We also fund a predator compensation fund via grants to big life limited (big life kenya), a related organization. For maasai herders, their cattle are their livelihood. When livestock falls prey to predators, the herders are financially disadvantaged and justifiably frustrated. (continued on schedule o - supplemental information)to prevent losses that lead to herders retaliating with spears or poisoned carcasses, big life foundation USA funds programs to encourage improved fencing and husbandry practices. In the event that an animal is lost to a predator, the herder is compensated for a percentage of the market value of the animal, using funds from the predator compensation fund. This small consolation is significant to the maasai, and as a result, retaliatory killings have been reduced significantly. In 2025, we funded the successful intervention by rangers against 8 attempted retaliatory lion hunts, and our grants to the predator compensation fund were used to reimburse participating community members a total of $101,099 for verified deaths by predation of livestock.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89.1%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -29.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $9.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $195K · 15 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.