Cougar Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311796418
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Jackson, WY, USA
Phone
3077330797
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$342,896
Expenses
$247,347
Assets
$347,847
Liabilities
$3,646

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS D MANGELSEN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PENELOPE MALDONADO (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $100,000 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 cougar fund protects cougars, bears, wolves, and other native carnivores throughout the americas by educating children and adults about their essential ecological role, by supporting and promoting sound science, and by monitoring state and regional policies to help ensure a lasting place for these species alongside human communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cougar fund participates in public events, providing opportunities to disseminate educational material, information, and resources promoting current science related to large carnivores. Cougar fund staff attend approximately 100 venues per year, including public presentations, community events, educational programs, and partnerships with organizations throughout Wyoming and neighboring states. These events serve a variety of demographics and invite exploration of questions surrounding wildlife management while offering practical solutions promoting the safety of people, pets, livestock, and wildlife itself through prevention and non-lethal deterrence. The organization attends after-school and summer education programs and maintains a remote camera project that collects video footage for educational purposes. Some materials have been translated to increase access to educational resources within the community. The cougar fund provided a research grant to support data collection, movement monitoring, and connectivity identification to mitigate habitat loss.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.8%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $84.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 27.9%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.8% of revenue deployed · 92.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $228K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.