Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911822186
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Eugene, OR, USA
Phone
5415542335
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Reported finances

Revenue
$289,068
Expenses
$281,579
Assets
$71,438
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Pascal Schuback (Executive Director)
  • Ines Pearce (President)
  • Timothy Walsh (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Pascal Schuback (Executive Director): $114,920 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup is a coalition of private and public representatives working together to improve the quality of regional communities to reduce the effects of major earthquakes (EQ). Its purpose is to promote efforts to reduce the loss of life and property, conduct education efforts to motivate to reduce EQ risks, and foster productive linkages among scientists, critical infrastructure providers, businesses, and government agencies to improve the viability of communities after an EQ event.

What it reported doing in 2021

Multi-state assistance: Goal: establish and support public and private partnerships; provide a forum for information exchange, and develop and deliver region-wide training. Accomplishments: Hosted and maintained communication platforms that facilitate discussion, sharing and collaboration. Created a roster of public-private partnerships of the western region.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 93.1%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.6%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.6% of revenue deployed · 93.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $262K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $115K · 11 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $115K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2014 to 2021
  • 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.

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: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.