How does wwf spend their money

Accreditation is given to charities and non-profits that have taken action through the Standards Program by identifying and reducing organizational risk, improving board governance practices, being transparent and accountable with finances and fundraising, and fostering a strong workforce.

The Trustmark is a symbol of excellence and leadership in the charitable sector. WWF is collecting postal codes so we can send you news and invitations most relevant to your area. Our Commitment to Financial Accountability Financial stewardship is key to achieving our conservation and fundraising goals and fulfilling donor expectations. Furthermore, it is problematic because it is an indicator that the organization is not financially secure. Less Documents Board Meeting Minutes More An official record of the events that take place during a board meeting ensures that a contemporaneous document exists for future reference.

Charities are not required to make their Board meeting minutes available to the public. As such, we are not able to review and critique their minutes. For this performance metric, we are checking to see if the charity reports on its Form that it does keep those minutes.

In the future, we will also track and rate whether or not a charity keeps minutes for its committee meetings. Less Distributes to Board Before Filing More Providing copies of the Form to the governing body in advance of filing is considered a best practice, as it allows for thorough review by the individuals charged with overseeing the organization. The Form asks the charity to disclose whether or not it has followed this best practice.

If the charity has not distributed its Form to the board before filing, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score. Less Compensates Board More The IRS requires that any compensation paid to members of the charity's governing body be listed on the Form Furthermore, all members of the governing body need to be listed whether or not they are compensated.

It is not unusual for some members of the board to have compensation listed. The executive director of the organization frequently has a seat on the board, for instance, and is compensated for being a full time staff member.

However, it is rare for a charity to compensate individuals only for serving on its Board of Directors. Although this sort of board compensation is not illegal, it is not considered a best practice. Policies Charity Navigator looks to confirm on the Form , or for some metrics on the charity's website, that the organization has these policies in place. More Such a policy protects the organization, and by extension those it serves, when it is considering entering into a transaction that may benefit the private interest of an officer or director of the organization.

Charities are not required to share their conflict of interest policies with the public. Although we can not evaluate the substance of its policy, we can tell you if the charity has one in place based on the information it reports on its Form If the charity does not have a Conflict of Interest policy, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score.

Less Whistleblower More This policy outlines procedures for handling employee complaints, as well as a confidential way for employees to report any financial mismanagement. Here we are reporting on the existence of a policy as reported by the charity on its Form Less Records Retention and Destruction More Such a policy establishes guidelines for handling, backing up, archiving and destruction of documents.

These guidelines foster good record keeping procedures that promotes data integrity. If the charity does not have a Records Retention and Destruction Policy, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score.

More This process indicates that the organization has a documented policy that it follows year after year. The policy should indicate that an objective and independent review process of the CEO's compensation has been conducted which includes benchmarking against comparable organizations.

We check to be sure that the charity has reported on its Form its process for determining its CEO pay. Less Donor Privacy More Donors have expressed extreme concern about the use of their personal information by charities and the desire to have this information kept confidential.

Privacy policies are assigned to one of the following categories: Yes: This charity has a written donor privacy policy published on its website, which states unambiguously that 1 it will not share or sell a donor's personal information with anyone else, nor send donor mailings on behalf of other organizations or 2 it will only share or sell personal information once the donor has given the charity specific permission to do so.

Opt-out: The charity has a written privacy policy published on its website which enables donors to tell the charity to remove their names and contact information from lists the charity shares or sells.

How a donor can have themselves removed from a list differs from one charity to the next, but any and all opt-out policies require donors to take specific action to protect their privacy. No: This charity either does not have a written donor privacy policy in place to protect their contributors' personal information, or the existing policy does not meet our criteria. Less Partial. Transparency Charity Navigator looks to confirm on the Form , or for some metrics on the charity's website, that the organization makes this information easily accessible.

Our analysts check to be sure that the charities complied with the Form instructions and included this information in their filing. Less Board of Directors Listed on Website More Our analysts check to see if the charity lists Board members on its website. Publishing this information enables donors and other stakeholders to ascertain the make up of the charity's governing body. This enables stakeholders to report concerns to the Board. Charity Navigator does not cross-check the Board members listed on the website with that reported on the Form , because the latter often isn't available until more than a year after the charity's fiscal year ends.

In that time, the charity's Board members may have changed, and the charity typically reflects those more recent changes on the website. Less Key Staff Listed on Website More It is important for donors and other stakeholders to know who runs the organization day-to-day. Charity Navigator does not cross-check the leadership listed on the website with that reported on the Form because the latter often isn't available until more than a year after the charity's fiscal year ends.

In that time, the charity's leadership may have changed and the charity typically reflects those more recent changes on the website. Got a confidential tip? Submit it here. Contact Tom Warren at tom. A BuzzFeed News investigation, in partnership with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, based on thousands of documents the government didn't want you to see.

Rangers patrol a park in the Republic of the Congo looking for evidence of wildlife poaching. BuzzFeed News. There are many other organizations out there doing solid work in combating trafficking of endangered species. Those same orgs also more more money into doing actual work and less money into supporting huge administrative overhead. I love animals and if you love animals you should donate. Habitat Loss and Pollution are the main factors that are wiping out wildlife.

WWF helps protect wildlife from these, by helping establish laws, create captive breading facilities, etc Aeon F. Although I totally support the cause of helping wildlife and animals in general, unfortunately my experience with WWF was a very bad one. When I called to donate I was told that I would receive a "save the tigers" t-shirt.

When I called weeks later and inquired why I never received it the employees were very arrogant and rude to me. They gave me the brush off and talked to me in a very unprofessional and insulting manner and even hung up on me. This left a very bad impression on me and I will never donate to them again. They really need to address the lack of common sense and professionalism of these employees who take the money over the phone.

I can't speak as an insider, but I live in Rwanda and since WWF has managed some of the parks here, the parks have increased revenue for badly needed tourism it's hard to get people to travel hours to a forest if there is no infrastructure and without tourism, the dire poverty in the area causes people to poach from the forest and take out resources.

For example, when I recently went to visit a habituated understand that does not mean "tamed" or "in captivity" monkey troupe, the tracker was a local woman. There are managed honey gathering and candle making projects that use resources sustainably rather than using the burning-out method which did significant damage to the forest in the past..

I don't know who owns the lodge at the edge of the forest Gisakura GH but WWF staff were staying there in very modest quarters.

I'll keep paying attention to issues people say about the compensation and the overkill on publicity, but I think they are doing important work in the field. As a volunteer I was very sad because I oberved huge waste of money, so people like Janet46 who gives donation to WWF in fact has s asmall percentage of her donation that really help wildlife and environment. I am don't trust WWF when they had to cover up a big scandal about corruption in Africa.

Their are good at marketing and since it is a old and famous one, people donate, but if they really knew!!!! World Wildlife Fund is the premier global wildlife non profit organization.

They work in numerous countries around the world helping endangered species and their habitats. They also have a strong focus on climate change and how it affects the Earth and its inhabitants. They have a heavy involvement in the war on wildlife trafficking. The WWF campaign that touches my heart the most is the one trying to save wild tigers. Wild tigers could become extinct in my lifetime if people don't step up to help.

WWF is one of the leaders in trying to save wild tigers by their efforts in saving tiger habitat and trying to stop tiger trafficking and poaching. I an proud to be a supporter of World Wildlife Fund. These guys tell you how much they care about the animals, but your donations go to the government. I don't like that they have no donor privacy policies. I am impressed with the work of this organization and as a business leader in the for-profit world, I must say they are incredibly efficient with their expenses.

On nearly every "larger" non-profit's reviews one can find multiple comments criticizing the CEO's compensation. However, a CEO of such a large nonprofit organization must be knowledgeable about running a large, sophisticated enterprise. They must have a working knowledge of finance; operations; fund development; marketing; and a myriad of other aspects of running a business. I personally as a donor want to make sure that a competent leader is at the helm.

I feel better knowing my donor dollars are managed by a fairly-paid executive who can handle the complexities of an organization at this level. Seem to be good, but not clear on where my money went after I gave it.

Would like more transparency. I am not a Donor yet. I'm concerned about their expenses. I'm also upset that when I called to donate, I was surprise to hear that the Adoption fee per month was higher than mentioned in the TV Ad. I'm not calling this bait and switch but its close. I have no problem with the token gifts as the one women seemed to be. She should realize the first payment will cover whatever they send and they will have the monthly donations from then on. What she should be concerned about is the Expenses they call out!

Salaries appear high. This unfortunately is the trouble with a lot of charities, to many fat cats at the top, no pun intended. Luis C. Hello, just saw a tv commercial regarding endangered tigers and decided to check out wwe. If you're listening wwe. Yes, I am living what I preach. They tried very hard once to kick out De Heaulme, who owns the Berenty Reserve out of his own property!

They would rather see the poorest among the poor Mahafaly, Antandroy being kept this way rather than see them developing real sustainable projects for it would harm their message wildlife is endangered everywhere you look.

I am not sure how high to rate WWF and that is why I am writing, because I have a question on what has been bothering me. I would like to know where these "free" gifts come from. Are they donated to WWF or is WWF buying them and if so how much of our donations are going to the purchase of these "free" gifts. That is my main concern as well as the salary of the CEO, but if someone can tell me that part of my donation is not going to give "free" gifts out, which I never accept, then I might feel better about donating.

Can someone answer this question for me? My concern is actually with two sub-topics of the WWF marketing effort. The photographic theme of WWF's materials is much too glamorous and cute, without ANY true naturalistic view of the humble and non-statuesque critters who might need saving. With your donation, we'll send you greeting cards, calendars, hats, tote-bags, umbrellas, T-shirts, letter-stickers, shoelaces, plush toys, and ash-trays ok, maybe not ash-trays.

Every year, I review their Charity Navigator ranking, expecting there to be some recognition that they have become a tax-exempt wholesaler for environmental trinkets and NOT an environmental organization of impact or utility.

I am a very long term donor and am familiar with the good work of this NGO. Further, they had the to my mind amazing chutzpah to send a solicitation saying, in effect, we will cease our onslaught of mailings if you promise to donate on a monthly basis! Like many of the existing reviews there are some pros and cons of supporting WWF. I have called and requested that they send less mail but to no avail. I get at least two copies of Focus and additional mail on what feels like a monthly basis.

The other side is that I feel like they do good work. The pros outweigh the negatives but I feel like the donor community must hold them more accountable or the inefficient behavior won't be changed.