Project Wildlife

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953005393
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
6192997012
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Sanctuary, Refuge

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$816,344
Expenses
$822,264
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karen Garsson (President)
  • Jim Fitzgerald (Vice President)
  • Beth Ugoretz (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Beth Ugoretz (Executive Director): $77,155 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Project Wildlife's mission is to improve the quality of life for local wildlife and the community, serving as the primary resource for animal rehabilitation and conservation education.

What it reported doing in 2014

In 2014, nearly 10,000 animals from opossums to owls and rabbits to raccoons made their way through Project Wildlifes doors. More than three-quarters were birds, from song birds and shore birds to birds of prey and hummingbirds. Roughly 40 percent made it back into their natural habitat, a number that is above the national average. The goal is to rehabilitate an animal back to 100 percent capacity before releasing it back into the wild. Project Wildlife is the only resource in San Diego County for the majority of wildlife to receive help.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 78.2%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -0.7%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -26.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.8% of revenue deployed · 78.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $643K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $77K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.