California Water and Environmental Modeling Forum
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680474890
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
- Location
- Lafayette, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5303040103
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $211,593
- Expenses
- $158,002
- Assets
- $466,597
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
People named in this filing
- Jesse Jankowski (Convener)
- Vivek Bedekar (Vice Convener)
- Benjamin Bray (Secretary)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To increase the usefulness of models for analyzing water-related issues and problems in California and related areas. To provide an open forum for the exchange, improvement, and pooling of water-related models and modeling information, and professional resources.
What it reported doing in 2024
Workshops -Single day conference where members usually 25 share developments and applications of scientific computer models.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 65% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 41
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 75
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 39.6%; rating input score 40
- Program expense ratio: 56.9%; rating input score 57
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 25.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.95; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 39.6% of revenue deployed · 56.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 37 of 37 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $90K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.