Defenders of Wildlife

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
530183181
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026829400
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$48,550,195
Expenses
$38,303,168
Assets
$65,453,645
Liabilities
$4,817,367

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

Leadership & pay

43 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Laura Sheehan (Senior Vice President, External Affairs)
  • Andrew Bowman (President & CEO (from 8/24))
  • Matt Braughler (Vice President, Development)
  • Brandace Swimeley (Vice President, Integrated Marketing)
  • Robert Dewey (Vice President, Government Relations)
  • Julia Adams (Vice President, Conservation Law)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jamie Rappaport Clark (President and CEO (to 7/24)): $861,689 total reported compensation
  • Michael Senatore (SVP, Conservation Programs): $305,212 total reported compensation
  • Brandace Swimeley (Vice President, Integrated Marketing): $300,786 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Conservation and Restoration of Imperiled Biodiversity in North America: Defenders of Wildlife focuses on the conservation of imperiled species and keystone or umbrella species that help restore the integrity and health of ecosystems. Our focus on wildlife and habitat conservation and the safeguarding of biodiversity defines our important niche in the environmental and conservation community. Long known for our leadership on endangered species issues, our programs emphasize imperiled species and their habitat throughout North America because of the irreparable loss that species extinction represents. We believe in the inherent value of wildlife and the natural world. To realize our conservation vision, Defenders of Wildlife engages in policy analysis and advocacy, litigation, innovative science, technology development, and conservation activities in the field. Our work is aimed at the prevention of species and habitats from becoming imperiled, the protection of endangered and threatened species and their habitats, and the restoration of the health of vulnerable species and their habitats. We are known for our innovative and pragmatic responses to a constantly changing political, economic and social environment. Our staff of scientists, wildlife policy experts, lobbyists, communications experts, and attorneys work in the halls of Congress, state legislatures, the courts, and local communities, and in the field across the country. We develop and advocate for innovative "up-stream" management solutions for public and private lands that encourage conservation of entire ecosystems and interconnected habitats. We emphasize collaboration with other groups as a means of bringing to bear as much collective influence as possible on policymakers and processes which are often subjected to relentless pressure from special interests. The shared goal of all of our activities is to make Defenders of Wildlife the nation's most effective champion of imperiled wildlife in an era of climate change and habitat loss, leading the way in meeting the challenges and seizing the opportunities that tomorrow presents to leave a rich and diverse natural legacy for future generations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.3%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 80.6%; rating input score 81; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.1%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.71; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.3% of revenue deployed · 71.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $27.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $862K · 43 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.8M reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 42 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 42 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 22 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.