The Big Bad Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
884183627
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3236450566
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal-Related N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$67,098
Expenses
$36,489
Assets
$83,797
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Shaunna Costicov-McCombe (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Shaunna Costicov-McCombe (Executive Director)
  • Alex Scheppke (Treasurer)
  • Sarah Seay (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The Big Bad Project promotes coexistence between people and wildlife through storytelling research and education that reshape public perception inform decision making and support more sustainable relationships with wild species and ecosystems.

What it reported doing in 2025

Rewriting the Wild Program: The Big Bad Project is developing Rewriting the Wild a storytelling and education program designed to reshape how wildlife particularly predators are portrayed and understood through narrative. The program engages students and writers in critical analysis and creative writing to challenge harmful or outdated representations and promote more accurate coexistence-focused perspectives. The program is currently in development with an official launch planned for 2026 to 2027. During the reporting period pilot activities and expert consultation were conducted to refine program structure curriculum and delivery for greater impact. The organization was awarded 5,000 in late 2025 to support program implementation with funds designated for use during the 2026 program year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.6%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 45.6%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.3; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 40.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 71.7% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.6% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.