Sarara Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822386824
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
2023201582
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,434,868
Expenses
$2,582,086
Assets
$458,809
Liabilities
$39,210

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NORA FLOOD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEREMY BASTARD (BOARD MEMBER): $120,000 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW SMILES (SECRETARY/TR): $78,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The sarara foundation operates across three key pillars: education & health, wildlife & conservation, and enterprise development

What it reported doing in 2024

Sarara promotes self governance, capacity building, and leadership training at a community level. Sarara supports the employement of 56 wildlife rangers, 7 eco rangers, 12 administrative staff, 24 grazing team members, and 108 elephant keepers. Our 2024 accomplishments include the following: - 13 elephant orphans successfully re-wilded from reteti elephant sanctuary - over 3,000 mothers and children treated in 2024 through the mobile healthcare program - 185 students ages 3-6 were enrolled in the nomadic education program, with almost 50% being girls - 55,000usd awarded in bursaries for the graduating children to continue their education. - 1,280 samburu women generated 398,000 in income through the milk-to- market program where samburu women sell their goats milk to reteti elephant sanctuary - as of 2024, reteti elephant sanctuary has overseen the return of the free-ranging population of 6,000 elephants

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.6%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.6% of revenue deployed · 88.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.