South Carolina Wildlife Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824034075
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Orangeburg, SC, USA
Phone
8035154075
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$398,393
Expenses
$283,365
Assets
$65,618
Liabilities
$57,637

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN P EVANS (PRESIDENT)
  • CHIP CAMPSEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ED PAUL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ED PAUL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $89,069 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to protect our state's hunting heritage and ensure this sports future for generations to come.

What it reported doing in 2025

Scwp is partnered with scdnr on the state waterfowl lottery hunt program. The partnership helps alleviate wait times for applicants to be successfully drawn for a waterfowl hunt. Wait times can exceed 5 years for many applicants. Scwp offers a secondary draw for the unsuccessful applicants to have the chance to hunt with scwp on private waterfowl properties. This allows hundreds of unsuccessful state applicants the opportunity to hunt waterfowl on well-maintained properties without depleting their accumulated preference points or incurring any additional costs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.5%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 54.8%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.9%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.4%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.5% of revenue deployed · 54.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $155K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 16 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $287K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.