The Leatherback Project

Legal name: The Leatherback Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
842922562
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Norfolk, MA, USA
Phone
5083159464
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$569,871
Expenses
$413,730
Assets
$189,783
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CALLIE VEELENTURF (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CALLIE VEELENTURF (PRESIDENT): $45,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Leatherback Project is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit working to protect leatherback sea turtles and other endangered marine species through research, education, and advocacy. We focus on reducing fisheries bycatch, advancing marine protected areas, and championing the Rights of Nature.

What it reported doing in 2024

The leatherback project conducts interdisciplinary research and conservation initiatives aimed at protecting leatherback sea turtles and other threatened marine species. Our work addresses key drivers of population decline, including fisheries bycatch and habitat degradation. We collaborate with scientists, policymakers, and coastal communities to promote evidence-based solutions such as marine protected area implementation and the recognition of natures legal rights. By using sea turtles as sentinel species, we investigate broader ecological changes and advocate for sustainable ocean stewardship grounded in science. Impact includes 86 square kilometers of protected area, 3 conservation projects launched, 25 sea turtles tagged in the pearl islands archipelago, 40 fishers trained in safe bycatch release techniques, 300 leatherback sea turtle nests monitored, 6,494 leatherback sea turtle hatchlings protected, and 118 nesting leatherback sea turtles id tagged.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 44
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.1%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.4%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 5 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 60.1% of revenue deployed · 82.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $342K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.