Chengeta Wildlife

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465485977
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Redmond, WA, USA
Phone
4256146393
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,516,096
Expenses
$996,016
Assets
$821,570
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GREG MURPHY (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

People named in this filing

  • DR CAROLYN ROBINSON (DIRECTOR)
  • JOSH BOWMAN (DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID LOCHHEAD (DIRECTOR)

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

We believe in long-lasting solutions for effective nature conservation. Chengeta means 'to look after' in shona. We work to end poaching across the globe, building long-lasting solutions for protected areas at government, protected area (see schedule o) management and ranger levels.our blueprint is locally led, harmonized with all other existing wildlife protection efforts, and recognizes communities as part of the ecosystem.

What it reported doing in 2024

Chengeta wildlife provides technical instructional support to help train and build capacity within existing local solutions. In simple terms, training rangers to protect wildlife. We also provide analytical services to improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of all field data. The intention is to aid decision making and focus law enforcement interventions. We provide consultancy support to ngos and national partners to develop law enforcement strategy and operational design to help the attainment of conservation objectives.chengeta wildlife is now routinely providing support in greater depth. Whereas we once focused on developing rangers on the frontline of conservation we are now working within management structures to better prepare and coordinate activity and at the strategic (see schedule o) level where we partner and advise national institutions.we provided law enforcement capacity building and analytics in salonga national park in the democratic republic of congo; dzanga sangha protected area & baminui-bangoran national park in central african republic and noubale-ndoki national park in the republic of congo.we provided strategic and operational consultancy support to: save valley conservancy in zimbabwe; yawanawa indigenous community in brazil and simien mountains national park in ethiopia.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 82% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 total spending goes to programs 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: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.7%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 83.3%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.3%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 36% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.7% of revenue deployed · 83.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $829K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $296K reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.