Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261676217
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
2034945986
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$669,131
Expenses
$566,558
Assets
$170,727
Liabilities
$8,095

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • VALERIE TAYLOR (EXECUTIVE DI): $71,875 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Global federation of animal sanctuaries (gfas) promotes excellence in sanctuary management and humane responsible care of animals through international accreditation and collaboration while seeking to eliminate the causes of displaced animals.

What it reported doing in 2024

Outreach: gfas educates sanctuaries, the public, donors, animal protection organizations, and government agencies, and in 2024 provided a variety of outreach programming to communicate the benefits of accreditation, heighten awareness for true sanctuaries, assist sanctuaries in enhancing effectiveness, and increasing capacity for care. These efforts include presenting at several national and global partner alliance conferences and workshops in person and virtually on the benefits of gfas accreditation and the gfas standards of excellence. In addition, gfas actively maintains membership and participates in collaborative initiatives with partner alliances including the asia for animals coalition, the world federation for animals, the big cat sanctuary alliance, the homes for horses coalition, the right horse initiative, and the united horse coalition, among others, to advance shared goals in animal welfare, sanctuary standards, and advocacy efforts aligned with the gfas mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 60% for direct work, and 40% for grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.1%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: 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: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: 15.3%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.1% of revenue deployed · 81.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $462K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.