Borderlands Restoration Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472581032
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Patagonia, AZ, USA
Phone
5206040224
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,210,123
Expenses
$2,106,002
Assets
$3,437,881
Liabilities
$349,539

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LYNN DAVISON (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • RODRIGO SIERRA CORONA (Executive Dir.): $112,114 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We partner to grow a restorative economy by rebuilding healthy ecosystems, restoring habitat for plants and wildlife, reconnecting our border communities to the land through shared learning, and linking communities to the land in a culturally relevant context.

What it reported doing in 2024

Native plant program - the borderlands restoration network native plant program works to promote and protect biodiversity and ecosystems in the sky islands by providing restoration-quality native plant materials. We provide a large selection of organicllly grown, chemical-free native trees, shrubs, grasses, succulents, and forbs for home, large scale restoration and contract services. We provide seed collection services of ethically collected wild or farmed native seed including cleaning and curating.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.7%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.4%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.7% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.