Society for Conservation Biology

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330147824
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022344133
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,182,998
Expenses
$3,676,090
Assets
$4,067,773
Liabilities
$410,848

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • VANESSA ADAMS (PRESIDENT (THRU 6/30/25))
  • MWEZI MUGERWA (PRESIDENT (START 7/1/25))
  • MATTHEW SELINSKE (PRESIDENT ELECT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WARREN SANDER (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $215,840 total reported compensation
  • NICOLE CRANE (SMITH FELLOWS PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $163,134 total reported compensation
  • NATHAN SPILLMAN (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $129,947 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 advance the science and practice of conserving earth's biological diversity.

What it reported doing in 2025

Publications: the society for conservation biology publishes three scientific journals. Conservation biology, founded in 1987, is the leading publication in its discipline and one of the most frequently cited journals in its field. Conservation letters, founded in 2008, is known for its globally important, policy-relevant papers on advances in the science and practice of conservation. Conservation science and practice, founded in 2019, publishes papers that address policy, planning and the practice of conserving biological diversity.for member-oriented news and happenings in and around scb, the society maintains the scb news blog, and an e-newsletter, published ten times per year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.5%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 81.4%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.1%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.8%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.5% of revenue deployed · 81.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $216K · 15 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 18 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 15 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.