Utah Zoological Society
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 870217405
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Salt Lake City, UT, USA
- Phone
- 8015841778
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Zoo, Zoological Society
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $23,946,177
- Expenses
- $26,089,205
- Assets
- $96,623,399
- Liabilities
- $7,589,227
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DOUGLAS LUND (PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- DOUGLAS LUND (PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $428,822 total reported compensation
- ELIZABETH LARSEN (SENIOR VP OF PROGRAMS): $222,566 total reported compensation
- CHERYL RUSHTON (VP OF FINANCE & CFO): $220,288 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Create champions for wildlife by making connections between people and animals to inspire action.
What it reported doing in 2025
See schedule o.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.4%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- 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: 97%; rating input score 97; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -8.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.7; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 96.4% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $429K · 21 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.3M reported
- Consistency: 38 of 40 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 14 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.