The Norcross Wildlife Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
132041622
IRS 990-PF coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990-PF 2025
Location
Wales, MA, USA
Phone
4132679654
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,938,077
Expenses
$2,448,638

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

Overview

Mission

Wildlife Preservation, Protection

What it reported funding in 2025

The foundation reported 26 filed grant rows totaling $167,500. The stated grant purposes included to support cisa's general operating fund. cisa supports farmers and the local food economy in norcross's region including advancing land conservation, assisting farmers of color gaining access to land., for general operating support, and the mission of the cape cod museum of natural history is to inspire appreciation, understanding, and stewardship of our natural environment and wildlife through discovery and learning., plus 14 other reported purposes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 95% of the foundation's positive operating resources came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The foundation carried out 90% of its reported charitable disbursements directly.
  • Includes asset-sale income: Asset-sale income is shown separately from recurring resources when classifying the revenue model.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes to charitable grants and the filing identifies who received its grants. A relatively small share of spending goes to grants and the filing reports one or more activities that warrant closer review.

Rating breakdown

  • Grant Deployment: 85
  • Cost Efficiency: 7
  • Transparency: 100
  • Compliance: 94
  • Endowment Health: 97

Detailed rating inputs

Grant Deployment

  • Grant deployment ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Cost Efficiency

  • Grant expense ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency

  • Grant recipient disclosure: Yes; rating input score 100

Compliance

  • Foundation activity disclosures: 17 of 19 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Property sale or exchange with a disqualified person: Pass
    • Borrowing from or lending to a disqualified person: Pass
    • Goods, services, or facilities involving a disqualified person: Pass
    • Compensation paid to a disqualified person: Fail
    • Assets transferred to a disqualified person: Pass
    • Payment to a government official: Pass
    • Uncorrected prior self-dealing: Pass
    • Prior-year undistributed income: Pass
    • Excess business holdings: Pass
    • Investments that may jeopardize charitable purposes: Pass
    • Uncorrected prior-year jeopardizing investments: Pass
    • Attempt to influence legislation: Pass
    • Attempt to influence an election: Pass
    • Individual grants for travel, study or similar purposes: Pass
    • Grants outside qualifying charitable organization categories: Fail
    • Spending for a noncharitable purpose: Pass
    • Funds received for a personal-benefit contract: Pass
    • Premiums paid on a personal-benefit contract: Pass
    • Prohibited tax-shelter transaction: Pass
  • Filing consistency checks: 10; rating input score 100

Endowment Health

  • Endowment-health comparison: 385.95; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Grants: 100% of grant recipient detail disclosed
  • Payout: 85.3% grant deployment rate
  • Trustees: Filed trustees detail
  • Self-dealing: 100% of reviewed questions answered “No”
  • Investments: 97th percentile for endowment coverage
  • Consistency: 10 of 10 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 43 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Cost Efficiency: Grant expense ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Compliance: Foundation activity disclosures: 2 of 19 not reported.