Scientists Center for Animal Welfare

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521116693
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Bend, OR, USA
Phone
301-345-3500
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$209,612
Expenses
$239,988
Assets
$902,512
Liabilities
$12,682

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Linda Tockey (Executive Director)
  • Randall J Nelson PhD (President)
  • John F Bradfield DVM PhD DACLAM (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Linda Tockey (Executive Director): $92,854 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To serve as an objective, credible source of information for the research community, the media, and the general public regarding the humane care and use of animals in research, through conferences, workshops, and publications.

What it reported doing in 2025

SCAW conducted conferences and workshops to enlighten scientists and others who work with laboratory animals about new national policies, institutional animal care and use committees, and animal welfare regarding the humane treatment of laboratory animals. Services to members include the publishing of a newsletter distributed to members, contributors, and other interested parties, and developing pre-recorded webinars on the care and proper use of laboratory animals.

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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.7%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.76; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38.7%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 92.7% of revenue deployed · 80.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $192K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $93K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.