National Anti-vivisection Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
362229588
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3124276065
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,619,734
Expenses
$3,557,123
Assets
$27,954,292
Liabilities
$402,369

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL B MANN (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • MARY ANN LIGON (VICE-PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • KENNETH KANDARAS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MARY CUNNIFF (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EMERITA)

Highest reported compensation

  • KENNETH CUNNIFF (PROGRAM CONSULTANT/ATTORNE): $246,637 total reported compensation
  • KENNETH KANDARAS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $181,655 total reported compensation
  • JULIANE TRAPP PEARSON (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $180,667 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Navs is dedicated to ending the exploitation of animals used in science. Navs works to identify and promote solutions that advance humane science in laboratories and classrooms.

What it reported doing in 2024

Navs works urgently to raise awreness and educate the public about the use of animals in education, research, and testing. Navs promotes and funds the identification, development, and use of humane, human-relevant solutions that can replace the cruel and wasteful use of animals in research, testing, and education. Navs disseminates credible and compelling educational content via its website, social media channels, printed publications, and other media outlets.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 84% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • 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: 81.6%; rating input score 82; 22nd 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.86; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $247K · 11 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $451K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • 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.