San Antonio Zoo

Legal name: San Antonio Zoological Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741323695
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Antonio, TX, US
Phone
(210)734-7184
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Zoo, Zoological Society

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$61,090,159
Expenses
$43,510,129
Assets
$138,562,172
Liabilities
$24,631,590

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

Leadership & pay

77 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN NAU III (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARYANNE GUIDO (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TIMOTHY MORROW (CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TIMOTHY MORROW (CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $507,001 total reported compensation
  • JESUS JESSE VARGAS (CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER): $286,875 total reported compensation
  • JENNY FRIEND (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $225,797 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

San Antonio Zoo is committed to securing a future for wildlife.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide the highest standard of care for our animal and plant collection and exhibit them for the 1,178,947 visitors to the zoo in each fiscal year. Utilize all resources at our disposal for the conservation of the earth's flora and fauna. Included in the experience is quality food and novelty concessions for the comfort of all guests.in addition, the zoo provides a diverse and high-quality recreational experience for over 350,000 guests annually at its educational center.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.1%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.5%; rating input score 96; 51st 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: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.8%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.18; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 68.1% of revenue deployed · 88.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 55 of 57 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $38.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $507K · 77 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $33.2M reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.