Tusk USA Inc C/o Ellen O'connell

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300190986
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2126021588
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$42,499
Expenses
$360,284
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHARLES MAYHEW (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELLEN C OCONNELL (EXCUTIVE DIRECTOR): $18,345 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Tusk is dedicated to working with local partners to protect wildlife while mitigating poverty and providing educational opportunities throughout africa. Over the last 40 years, the world's wildlife population has decreased by more than half and some of the planet's most iconic species are on the brink of extinction. Fueled by the illegal wildlife trade, rapid population growth, and economic inequality - the destruction of africa's natural resources has reached an unprecedented level. This threatens not only africa's wildlife but also the entire, fabric of african society. By partnering with local organizations, tusk is combining conservation, education and community programs to make positive change - one step at a time. At tusk, we have been working for over 25 years to protect african wildlife for generations to come. Our approach is to invest in three core areas - direct wildlife conservation, promotion of education and community programs.the first piece of the puzzle is funding 'boo

What it reported doing in 2018

The grants have been made to tusk trust for the benefit of the listed programs: at the bateleurs; conservation lower zambezi, lilongwe wildlife centre; save valley conservation; south luangwa conservation soci; vulture protection; lep sanga school; nomad trust in tanzania; singita trust (water project); ewaso lion project; c3 madagascar; south african wildlife college; lamu turtle, kenya; mali elephant project; chimpanzee conservation center; space for giants; stop ivory; ol pejeta conservancy; maasailand pres trust; walikali (drc); cercopan; mkomazi project; olare orok conservancy; uganda conservation fund; northern rangelands trust; painted dog conservation; koiyaki guide school.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 68.9%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 26th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -747.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -28.4% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -34.1% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -50.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 68.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $248K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $18K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.