Stop Animal Exploitation Now

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311481336
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Milford, OH, USA
Phone
5135755517
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$381,227
Expenses
$197,892
Assets
$1,751,775
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michael A Budkie AHT (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Michael A Budkie AHT (Executive Director): $37,366 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

SAEN's mission is to end animal experimentation through cutting edge investigations, hard-hitting media exposes, and public presssure.

What it reported doing in 2024

SAEN fought to expose and end appalling cruelty in major US animal labs. Facilities targeted by SAEN investigations have been cited, issued Official Warnings, fined by the USDA, and/or closed. SAEN has also shut down individual animal experiments and breeding programs along with forcing retraction of journal articles and researchers to resign. Labs targeted by SAEN include: Harvard, Cimcool, UC Davis, UCSF, UCLA, Oklahoma State U, U of Louisiana, OHSU, U of Wisconsin, TBRI, Emory, Alpha Genesis, USC, and Santa Cruz Biotech - to name a few but not all inclusive. SAEN's campaigns have significantly increased public awareness of the animal experimentation issue by generating over 100 separate news stories in 2023 alone.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% 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.

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: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 50
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.2%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 89.6%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $164.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 5th 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: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 48.1%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.85; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.9%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.2% of revenue deployed · 89.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $177K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $37K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.