Carrizo Plain Conservancy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 383920272
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8057819624
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $100,097
- Expenses
- $73,160
- Assets
- $5,705,774
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Douglas Drynan (Vice President)
- Neil Havlik (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Stephnie Wald (Secretary): $24,300 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to work with government agencies, non-government organizations and interested groups and individuals to foster permanent protection of wildlife habitat within the Carrizo Plain area of San Luis Obispo County, California. This is done by purchasing land or easements, accepting donations of same, undertaking actions to restore or enhance wildlife habitat found on those lands, and to provide educational opportunities for the public about these lands and actions.
What it reported doing in 2025
The organization had a successful year in acquisitions, acquiring 3 parcels of land totaling 120 acres from willing sellers (including one donation), and accepting donations of 3 vacant parcels totaling 7.5 acres from three other parties. Funds for the purchases were paid directly into escrow by several grants from the Nature Conservancy, with ancillary costs being advanced by the organization and later reimbursed. In the case of the donations the organization paid the closing costs. The expenses include closing costs and required site investigations. The organization also continued work on an evaluation of the natural resources of land northwest of Carrizo Plain National Monument, which is of interest for future conservation efforts. This study was funded by a grant from the Kiewit Foundation of Santa Barbara in 2024; the study is still ongoing but is nearing completion and is expected to be complete in summer 2026.
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 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: 55
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 76
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.9%; rating input score 56
- Program expense ratio: 73.2%; rating input score 73
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 26.9%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 77.99; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 33.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 55.9% of revenue deployed · 73.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $54K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $24K · 8 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.