Ifaw

Legal name: International Fund for Animal Welfare Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311594197
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Yarmouth Port, MA, USA
Phone
+1 508 744 2000
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$44,498,195
Expenses
$40,694,460
Assets
$56,693,482
Liabilities
$16,048,281

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Azzedine Downes (President Chief Executive Officer)
  • Jimel Mandima (Vice President Global Programs until January 31)
  • Kevin McGinnis (Vice President Human Resources- assistant clerk)
  • Elizabeth Fowler (Deputy Vice President Development)
  • Laura Tzimonrangas (Deputy Vice President Development Operations - assistant clerk)

Highest reported compensation

  • Azzedine Downes (President Chief Executive Officer): $514,170 total reported compensation
  • Joanne Thelmo (General Counsel): $299,198 total reported compensation
  • Jimel Mandima (Vice President Global Programs until January 31): $295,924 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Fresh thinking and bold action for animals, people and the place we call home.

What it reported doing in 2024

Animal Rescue strategies are focused on the following: Wild animals rescued by IFAW are successfully released or progressing toward release into secure habitats Reduce animal suffering before during and after disasters Community animals rescued in disasters and are reunited with owners or rehomed Work with stakeholders on improving and implementing rescue practices.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% 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: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.2%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 71%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.6%; rating input score 98; 28th 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: 8.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.39; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 10 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 7 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 67.2% of revenue deployed · 71% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $28.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $514K · 22 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.4M reported
  • Consistency: 48 of 51 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 25 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.