City Wildlife Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 262641235
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013, Form 990-N 2011
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2028821000
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,059,580
- Expenses
- $835,728
- Assets
- $1,003,465
- Liabilities
- $49,529
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jim Monsma (Executive Director Former)
- Anne Lewis (Founding President)
- April Linton (President)
- Lisa Olson (Vice President)
- Lorraine Docherty (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Jim Monsma (Executive Director Former): $104,691 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The goals of City Wildlife are to rescue sick, orphaned, and injured wild animals and return them to the wild; to promote the enjoyment of and harmonious co-existence with native wildlife; and to protect the District of Columbias wild places for animal habitat.
What it reported doing in 2024
Wildlife Rehabilitation Center: City Wildlifes Rehabilitation Center cared for more than 1,800 sick, injured, and orphaned wild animals in 2024. Patients included wild birds - raptors, waterfowl, and songbirds - small mammals, and native reptiles and amphibians. Many were Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the District of Columbia. City Wildlifes goal is to release healthy animals back to the wild. The Center, open every day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., is staffed by a full-time wildlife veterinarian with the assistance of licensed wildlife rehabilitators. Protecting wildlife: Most of our patients injuries are caused directly or indirectly by human activities. We work to heal the animals in our clinic, but also to connect with people in a way that advances understanding and compassion for wildlife. With each patient intake and phone call, we share helpful information about our wildlife neighbors, build understanding, promote compassion, and dispel concerns. Protecting people: Our wildlife rehabilitation program serves as a sentinel for detecting zoonotic disease in wildlife. It also provides a place for people to bring distressed wild animals whom they might otherwise try to care for at home, risking possible disease or injury to themselves or others. Protecting the environment: In addition to its primary mission, City Wildlife reviews and comments on local actions proposed by governments and private developers that might have impacts on wildlife. Our comments and advocacy support the protection of the Districts wildlife as well as actions that conserve habitat.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 71%; rating input score 71
- Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $22.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 21.1%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 71% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $748K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $105K · 15 people listed
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.