Wetlands America Trust Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363330394
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Memphis, TN, USA
Phone
9017583825
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,476,047
Expenses
$21,876,523
Assets
$201,038,493
Liabilities
$113,219,443

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Karen Waldrop PhD (Director): $441,256 total reported compensation
  • Daniel Thiel (Executive Secretary, DUI and WAT): $400,950 total reported compensation
  • Darin R Blunck (Assistant Treasurer): $386,156 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Wetlands america trust, inc. Is a nonprofit organization formed in 1985 to expand ducks unlimited, inc's mission to provide leadership in the protection of the natural balance of wetlands ecosystems ensuring the future viability of waterfowl and other wetland wildlife in north america. The trust operates exclusively for the benefit of du and compliments du's domestic habitat programs in harmony with du's conservation priorities. The trust is also a fiduciary for du and manages endowments and revolving funds. Du is the sole member of the trust.

What it reported doing in 2024

In addition to securing conservation easements, a portfolio of fee-title properties is also maintained. Generally, wetlands america trust, inc.'s land acquisition strategy serves to protect important waterfowl habitat under imminent threat of detrimental land-use conversion when conservation easements are not an option. Once acquired, waterfowl habitat on the property is restored and rehabilitated. After necessary restorations are complete, properties are disposed to public agencies or conservation buyers after proper steps have been made to ensure perpetual protection of the properties' conservation values.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 8.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.19; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $21.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $441K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.