California Wildlife Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680234744
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
5103339831
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,707,220
Expenses
$5,499,925
Assets
$14,635,395
Liabilities
$7,530

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JANET COBB (Executive Offr.): $193,231 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species

What it reported doing in 2024

Cwf continues to administer state coastal conservancy funds for the greater san francisco bay restoration projects including importing free, tested, clean soil for restoring wetlands, raising levees, and building ecotone projects. Its partners include pacific states enviromental inc. And granite rock. These large-scale projects are the responsiblity of the united states fish and wildlife service and the California department of fish and wildlife. Cwf feels grateful to be part of the implementation efforts. Funds for skaggs island were received from the united states navy; endowment funds to benefit antioch dunes restoration were received from pacific gas and electric company

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 21
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.8%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.66; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $193K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.