Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 264061031
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2020
- Forms available
- Form 990 2020
- Location
- Menlo Park, CA, USA
- Phone
- 6503658678
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Pollution Abatement and Control Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $28,502
- Expenses
- $176,203
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GEOFF BROSSEAU (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- GEOFF BROSSEAU (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $210,594 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Basmaa is focused on regional challenges and opportunities to improving the quality of stormwater that flows to our local creeks, san francisco bay and delta, and the ocean, through facilitation, promotion of information sharing, development of guidance and education, as well as development of new stormwater projects and programs.
What it reported doing in 2020
Municipal regional permit/regional projects - based on the national pollutant discharge eliminaiton system (npdes) permit, issued to the 76 phase i stormwater programs in the san francisco bay area. The association is working with member agencies, to design, develop, conduct and evaluate a series of regional programs and projects that assist member agencies to comply with the permit and advance the state of knowledge of stormwater quality management.
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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 4
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 33.2%; rating input score 33
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -518.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 119.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -29.2% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -17% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 33.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $59K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $211K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2009 to 2020
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.