Wildlife Habitat Federation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201556341
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sealy, TX, USA
Phone
9798774961
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,678,733
Expenses
$1,615,245
Assets
$502,084
Liabilities
$85,707

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Garry L Stephens (Program Director): $127,000 total reported compensation
  • Margaretta P Sleeper (Assistant Secretary-Treasurer): $79,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

WHF works with landowners and like-minded conservation groups throughout the State of Texas to create resilient prairie ecosystems that can consistently provide benefits and resist environmental changes. Every alliance receives a custom strategy for each site ranging from targeted treatment to full scale restoration of the site into a more natural state.

What it reported doing in 2024

EDUCATION & OUTREACH: Wildlife Habitat Federation (WHF) works with like-minded organizations to achieve common goals, co-hosting education and outreach events with allied organizations to inform the public about land conservation practices, programs and benefits. On-site consultations provided landowners with technical guidance, and site evaluations were developed into conservation plans that outline a series of practices with the goal of providing measurable improvements of all natural resources present. WHF assisted landowners with enrollment in Farm Bill financial programs, participated in 61 conservation events given to public and private entities, went on 343 site visits with landowners, developed 75 conservation plans for 59,009 acres. Technical assistance was provided to 95 landowners for 199,908 acres.

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 100% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 3.8%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.8%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.6% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $127K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.