Black Jaguar-White Tiger Foundation
Legal name: Black Jaguar White Tiger Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 474922935
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2020
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2020, Form 990-N 2015
- Location
- Weston, FL, USA
- Phone
- 7862777337
- Rating
- 52
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Wildlife Preservation, Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,050,467
- Expenses
- $1,002,278
- Assets
- $29,659
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Executive titles in this filing
- EDUARDO M MOISES SERIO (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- EDUARDO M MOISES SERIO (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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To make a difference with our daily actions.
What it reported doing in 2020
The foundation and the mexican goverment have succesfully negotiated th surrender of around 120 animals from circuses and breeders.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 63
- Accountability: 6
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73.8%; rating input score 74
- Program expense ratio: 77.4%; rating input score 77
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 72.7%; rating input score 73; 0th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th 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; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: 4.6%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 56.3% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 73.8% of revenue deployed · 77.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 12 of 15 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2016 to 2020
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.