Berkeley Geochronology Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943202572
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Berkely, CA, USA
Phone
5106449200
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,000,316
Expenses
$3,073,003
Assets
$19,216,294
Liabilities
$305,045

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL RENNE (MEMBER/PRES.): $282,387 total reported compensation
  • WARREN SHARP (GEOCHRONOLOGIST): $188,347 total reported compensation
  • ALAN DEINO (GEOCHRONOLOGIST): $183,570 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Berkeley geochronology center (bgc) is dedicated to establishing the history of the earth, its various inhabitants, and its interactions with the rest of our solar system, throughout the 4.6 billion years of our planet's existence. This mission is centered on development, refinement, and application of geological dating methods.

What it reported doing in 2025

Educational outreach - bgc conducts educational outreach with graduate students whose research involves geochronology, and provides research experience for undergraduate students. Bgc scientists serve as research advisors to graduate students at ucb and other universities both nationally and internationally.

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 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 89
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.4%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.25; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 79.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $282K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.