Ceiba Foundation for Tropical Conservation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311565636
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082305550
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,128,933
Expenses
$908,807
Assets
$482,726
Liabilities
$6,681

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CATHERINE WOODWARD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOE MEISEL (TREASURER &): $90,000 total reported compensation
  • CATHERINE WOODWARD (PRESIDENT): $45,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To conserve tropical biodiversity through habitat protection, environmental education, and sustainable livelihoods. Public education, habitat conservation and research in the terrestrial and marine systems in the tropics.

What it reported doing in 2025

Implementing conservation of threatened tropical dry forest on the coast of ecuador and cloud forests through protection of private forests and enactment of local ordinances encouraging habitat conservation. Supported establishment and growth of bio-entrepreneuroship activities that contribute to community livelihoods.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.5%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 79.3%; rating input score 79; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.5%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.5% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $813K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.