Wild Wonder Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
872348662
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Auburn, CA, USA
Phone
5302053546
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$998,971
Expenses
$677,377
Assets
$926,577
Liabilities
$5,457

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Muir Laws (President)
  • Elizabeth Kelley Gillogly (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Elizabeth Kelley Gillogly (Vice President): $91,975 total reported compensation
  • Roseann Hanson (Treasurer): $28,405 total reported compensation
  • John Muir Laws (President): $27,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Wild Wonder Foundation is dedicated to encouraging nature connection and conservation through attention, curisity, art, science and community.

What it reported doing in 2025

4b In 2025, 426 people enrolled in our Wild Wonder Nature Journal Educator Program, including 353 who enrolled for the Wild Wonder Nature Journaling Educator Certificate (certificate earners create a stewardship project, and in 2025, they completed 19,629 stewardship hours). As part of the program, we hosted three Wild Wonder Nature Journal Educator Workshops (8-hour online training, attended by more than 200 people.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 73% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th 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: 39.7%; rating input score 40; 31st 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: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.2%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.37; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.3%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 57.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 35.3% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 35.4% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58% of revenue deployed · 87.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $593K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 40/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.