Carmel River Watershed Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770548869
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Carmel, CA, USA
Phone
3038544900
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recycling Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$130,661
Expenses
$237,068
Assets
$804,470
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ABBIE BEANE (Vice President)
  • JEN HUNTER (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELISE WEILAND (Executive Dir.): $105,231 total reported compensation
  • ABBIE BEANE (Vice President): $25,500 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 conservancy's mission is the protection of natural resources that form the carmel river watershed including threatened species of steelhead and California red-legged frogs. The conservancy balaances environmental protection and the diverse needs of the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Crwc highlights 2024continued delivery of the second iteration of the carmel river watershed health report card to identify areas that need to be prioritized for managment by the 2020 carmel river task force action plan.partnered with the cal state university monterey bay watershed institute for the update and delivery of the report card.continued reasearch on wildfire impact to the watershed.started monthly educational program in the winter months called science uncorked. Each program was regularly atteded by 75 community members with topics including impacts to watershed, desalination, removal of the san clemente dam, understanding drought resilience and fire prevention.received grant from the coastal conservancy to fund wildfire preparation. The conservancy is implementing a stwardship guide to prevent wildfire and flooding.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 5
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -81.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.39; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 55.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.3% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -30.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $204K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $105K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.