Point Defiance Zoological Society
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 916066667
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Tacoma, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2533315496
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,671,113
- Expenses
- $1,844,365
- Assets
- $31,947,931
- Liabilities
- $325,937
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JACQUELYN HOFLICH (PRESIDENT)
- LARRY CLARK (VICE PRESIDENT)
- RUTHANN HOWELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- RUTHANN HOWELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $145,238 total reported compensation
- LISA JOHNSON (SENIOR DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO): $114,430 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The point defiance zoo society (the zoo society) fosters the relationship between point defiance zoo & aquarium (pdza) and our community by raising funds and generating community support. The zoo society supports the mission of pdza by providing financial and in-kind resources for the zoo's recreation, education and conservation programs, its animal collections, and its permanent and temporary exhibitions.
What it reported doing in 2025
The zoo society provides monetary support through individual donations or bequests, events, campaigns and grants for operations, community and school access, youth leadership development, animal care and welfare, capital improvements, emergency funding and conservation initiatives both in collaboration and partnership with point defiance zoo & aquarium. In addition, conservation efforts on behalf of endangered species represented in the animal and horticulture collection are funded by donations and a portion of the contractual revenue provided by metro parks tacoma.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 74% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.4%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 85%; rating input score 85; 40th 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -10.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.32; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.4% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $145K · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.