Conservation Science Global

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814473006
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Cape May, NJ, USA
Phone
7242163770
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$993,091
Expenses
$906,350
Assets
$587,634
Liabilities
$102,213

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TRICIA MILLER (CHAIR): $105,922 total reported compensation
  • ADAM DUERR (TREASURER): $87,527 total reported compensation
  • MELISSA BRAHAM (SECRETARY): $76,617 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To benefit local, regional, and global communities, we conduct scientific research to advance conservation and management of natural resources, and we educate the public, scientists, and policy makers about the results and implications of this research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Conservation - through this program, csg engages in direct actions to conserve our natural resources. For example, we install nest boxes to provide nesting resources for barn owls. Additionally, through our hunters for eagle conservation program, we provide rebates or vouchers for lead-free ammunition to hunters to decrease the amount of lead on the landscape. This directly benefits eagles and other scavenging wildlife that might otherwise ingest lead fragments while feeding on carrion contaminated with lead ammunition.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 35
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.1%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $222.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 20%; rating input score 20; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.7%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.1% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $825K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $106K · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $145K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 20/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.