Center for Plant Conservation
Legal name: Center for Plant Conservation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 222527116
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Wildomar, CA, US
- Phone
- (951) 428-7208
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Natural Resources Conservation and Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,988,614
- Expenses
- $1,877,864
- Assets
- $11,921,362
- Liabilities
- $668,640
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ALLISON ALBERTS (VICE PRESIDENT)
- DAVID DOYLE (PRESIDENT/TREASURER)
- BARBARA MILLEN (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
- SCOTT MEDBURY (INTERIM CEO (UNTIL 3/28/25))
- WESLEY KNAPP (CEO (AS OF 3/31/25))
Highest reported compensation
- WESLEY KNAPP (CEO (AS OF 3/31/25)): $148,088 total reported compensation
- SCOTT MEDBURY (INTERIM CEO (UNTIL 3/28/25)): $48,462 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
CPC safeguards rare plants by advancing science-based conservation practices, connecting and empowering plant conservationists, and inspiring all to protect biodiversity for future generations.
What it reported doing in 2025
Partner resources: access to cutting edge tools, data, and information through our exclusive conservation partners-only web portal. Through the conservation partners portal, members can disseminate conservation knowledge on our national collection plant profiles, which receive thousands of visitors each year. The conservation partners portal also provides a repository of critical conservation documents including the most up to date cpc conservation protocols. Additional cpc data assets include the pollinators of rare plants database and the rare plant reintroduction database, which members are encouraged to contribute to and utilize to extend the science of conservation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 56
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65.5%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 53.8%; rating input score 54
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 82.8%; rating input score 83; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.35; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 65.5% of revenue deployed · 53.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $148K · 21 people listed
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 29 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 26 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.