National Trappers Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363646973
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Bedford, IN, USA
Phone
8122789677
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Sanctuary, Refuge

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$186,320
Expenses
$216,382
Assets
$261,562
Liabilities
$1,478

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MIKE SIEVERING (PRESIDENT)
  • CHIP DAVIS (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • BRIAN COGILL (DIRECTOR)
  • JOHN DANIEL (DIRECTOR)
  • MATT LUMLEY (DIRECTOR)

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

National trappers foundation (ntf) was established to improve knowledge as well as to inform and educate the public about the furbearer species. The mission is to stimulate public interest and appreciation of furbearers and natural resources. Ntf also wants to raise awareness of the need and importance of restoring, using wisely, and scientifically managing furbearers by promoting improved environmental education through coordination and cooperation with other organizations, agencies, and individuals with similar interests.

What it reported doing in 2025

National trappers foundation (ntf) establishes programs to preserve and enhance the furbearer habitat. Programs also promote and assist scientific research of furbearer species and their needs. Ntf also teaches conservation education to the public, monitors species population densities, and provides research grants and scholarships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.9%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 64.4%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 57.6%; rating input score 58; 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; 64th 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: -16.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.21; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.9% of revenue deployed · 64.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $139K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.