Raven Respecting Aboriginal Values and Environmental Needs
Public records show a registered, tax-exempt organization in good standing.
Points to look into
- Only 46% of its spending went to programs.
These come from the organization's own tax return. There may be a good explanation; ask the charity.
What it says it does
R.A.V.E.N.'s mission is to raise legal defence funds to assist Indigenous People who enforce their rights and title to protect their traditional territories.
- Income
- $2.4 million
- Spending
- $2.0 million
- Spent on programs
- 46%
- Reserves
- 21.2 months of spending
- Largest source of income
- donations and private grants, 93%
- Employees
- 0
- Volunteers
- 0
- Highest pay
- $107,144, exec director - left jan 31, 2025
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Financial health
Good: 70 out of 100. Higher than 39% of charities in its peer group (environment, $1m to $10m).
Reserves
35 of 35Spendable reserves would cover 21.2 months of spending.
Debt
20 of 20It owes 5% of what it owns.
Living within its means
15 of 15Income exceeded spending by 18% of income.
Income trend
0 of 15Income fell 34% on the year before.
Spending floor
0 of 1546% of spending went to programs and raising each dollar of donations cost 0 cents.
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Governance
Good: 70 out of 100. Higher than 14% of charities in its peer group (environment, $1m to $10m).
Independent board
25 of 255 of 5 voting board members are independent.
Conflict of interest policy
15 of 15Has a written conflict of interest policy.
Whistleblower policy
0 of 8Reports no written whistleblower policy.
Record keeping policy
0 of 7Reports no written policy on keeping and destroying records.
Board minutes
5 of 5Keeps minutes of board meetings.
Board sees the tax return
0 of 10Did not give the board a copy of this return before filing it.
Pay set independently
0 of 5Reports no independent review process for its chief executive's pay.
Independent check of accounts
15 of 15Its accounts were audited by an independent accountant.
No reported misuse
10 of 10Reports no diversion of assets, excess benefits or loans to insiders.
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Impact evidence
Describes programs. Its tax return describes what it does but we have found no measurable results in it.
Programs described in its return (4)
- $223,425 spent. BEAVER LAKE CREE NATION (BLCN):Beaver Lake Cree Nation went to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2022 to argue for an Advanced Cost Order (ACO). BLCN received a favourable decision which set a precedent for access to justice for 'impecunious' Nations who are bringing cases of national importance. BLCN received a decision from the King's Bench of Alberta as to how much funding they will receive for their case in August 2024. The lower court ruled that Alberta is now required to pay $1.5 million per year until the conclusion of the Treaty rights infringement case. ....continues on Schedule OBEAVER LAKE CREE NATION (BLCN) - continued:This decision, alongside the ACO precedent that was set by the BLCN, was a huge win for access to justice. BLCN continues to prepare for their 160 day trial set for January 2027,
- $202,765 spent. GRASSY NARROWS FIRST NATION (Grassy Narrows):In June 2024, Grassy Narrows filed their legal case against Canada and Ontario over the mercury contamination of the English-Wabigoon River in northern Ontario which they rely on.The lawsuit is based on the Ontario and Canadian governments' failure to act in a way that upholds Treaty 3. Treaty 3 includes protecting Grassy Narrows' right to fish, hunt, and practice their culture while restoring their Anishinaabe way of life and wellbeing, as it is nearly impossible to have meaningful rights when your ecosystem is contaminated by mercury.
- $186,058 spent. HEILTSUK NATION (Heiltsuk):Heiltsuk is taking Kirby Corporation (an oil shipping company), Canada and British Columbia to court. The case focuses on the damages arising from the catastrophic Nathan E. Stewart spilling of toxic fuels into Heiltsuk's marine harvesting areas.This case has the potential to set a precedent in the awarding of damages relating to the impact of and damages to cultural practices of a First Nation. Currently, damages are only awarded if they impact the economic livelihood of commercial fishers. ...continues on Schedule OHEILTSUK NATION (Heiltsuk) - continued:Heiltsuk completed their own Indigenous-led environmental impact assessment report (EIA), where Heiltsuk laws and knowledge ground the methodology and content of the report.
- $292,850 spent. 1. BREATHING LANDS (Expenses - $82,374): The names given to the vast peatlands of Ontario's north are "Yehewin Aski and "Bakitanaamowin Aki", meaning the Breathing Lands. It's an incredibly powerful evocation of the life-giving role of a vital ecosystem that has sustained Indigenous Peoples since time immemorial. Successive settler governments have run roughshod over Indigenous Peoples' Treaty No. 9 rights for over a century. A coalition of several Nations have taken Canada and Ontario to court to press for co-jurisdiction in Treaty No. 9 territory, giving them greater decision-making power over resource extraction projects on their lands. They expect Canada and Ontario to file their Statement of Defence soon. This case has the potential to set a precedent on the interpretation of Treaty No. 9. It focuses on the role of oral promises in the agreements enshrined with the Treaty. 2. GITXAALA NATION (Gitxaala) (Expenses - $61,966): In September 2023, Gitxaala Nation received a favourable decision in their case over British Columbia's (BC's) archaic Mineral Tenure Act. The case initiated an overhaul of B.C.'s online mineral tenure system, giving over 200 First Nations more say over how and where their lands are used for mining. Although Gitxaala celebrates this victory for mining justice, the B.C. Supreme Court also found that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has no force under law in B.C. Gitxaala is appealing this aspect of the judgement to ensure that B.C. courts interpret the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) as creating justiciable rights. 3. KABAOWEK FIRST NATION (Kabaowek) (Expenses - $58,372): Kebaowek First Nation is challenging a decision of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) in court to protect the sacred Kichi Sibi (Ottawa River) from a nuclear waste disposal facility proposed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL). In February 2025, Kebaowek First Nation received a decision from the Federal Court that was overwhelmingly positive for protecting the Kichi Sibi (Ottawa River) and advancing UNDRIP in Canadian law. CNL has appealed this decision and Kebaowek is preparing for another hearing. 4. WET'SUWET'EN NATION (Wet'suwet'en) (Expenses - $32,288):Two Houses of the Likhts'amisyu (Fireweed) Clan are pressing ahead with their case that aims to confront Canada's inaction to address the ongoing threat of climate disaster. However, Canada filed its second motion to strike the claim, which, if successful, would prevent the case from being heard in court. Likhts'amisyu members and leadership are opposing this motion to strike, enacting their own responsibility, under Wet'suwet'en law, to protect future generations from the effects of climate change. Currently, their next court date is scheduled for August 21, 2025, in Vancouver, BC. 5. INTERVENOR FUND (Expenses - $26,594)In 2022 RAVEN launched a new "Intervenor Fund" to allow Nations and Indigenous organizations to participate in and influence litigation without bearing the full cost of legal challenges. 6. OTHER PROGRAMS (Expenses - $31,256)RAVEN continued to work with various Indigenous nations on smaller legal projects.
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Legitimacy checks
Is it registered with the IRS? Passed.
Listed in the IRS master file of tax-exempt organizations as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated September 7, 2026.
Has the IRS revoked its tax-exempt status? Worth knowing.
Status was revoked on May 15, 2012 for not filing returns for three years, and reinstated on May 15, 2012.
Source: Automatic revocation of exemption list, Internal Revenue Service, file dated September 30, 2026.
Are donations tax-deductible? Passed.
On the IRS list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.
Source: Publication 78 data: organizations eligible for tax-deductible contributions, Internal Revenue Service, file dated September 10, 2026.
Is it keeping up with its IRS filings? Passed.
Most recent return on file covers the year ending December 2024.
Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated September 7, 2026.
How long has it been tax-exempt? Passed.
Recognized by the IRS since May 2014.
Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated September 7, 2026.
Is it in good standing with state regulators? Passed.
Not on California's list of charities barred from soliciting. Other states are not yet checked.
Source: May Not Operate or Solicit for Charitable Purposes list, California Attorney General, Registry of Charities and Fundraisers, file dated October 7, 2026.
Ratings and checks are our reading of public records, using the published method. They are not a statement about anyone's honesty. If you work for this organization, you can send corrections or results, confirm you want gifts through Veridonate, or ask to be removed from giving.