Elephant Havens Wildlife Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823352560
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
9726201365
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,402,691
Expenses
$1,902,831
Assets
$4,969,346
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEBRA K STEVENS (PRESIDENT)
  • CAMILLA COWAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SHANNON NEWSOM (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DEBRA K STEVENS (PRESIDENT)
  • CAMILLA COWAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SHANNON NEWSOM (VICE PRESIDENT)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide financial support to programs devoted to the safeguarding of valuable species, the preservation of wildlife in their natural habitat, the dissemination of knowledge for the furtherance of wildlife preservation, (continued on sch. O)addressing animal welfare issues, rescuing and rearing orphan elephants, and effective reintegration of orphan elephants back into the wild.

What it reported doing in 2025

Other expenses related to carrying out the funding of the construction of the orphanage facility, botswana staff wages and housing, fencing, solar panels, photo/video equipment, feeding and care of young elephants, veterinary expenses, and transportation costs as well as community outreach including development of water wells and sanitation facilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 99.4%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.7%; rating input score 100; 46th 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; 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: 44.1%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.61; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.5% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 43.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58% of revenue deployed · 99.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.