Central Coast Salmon Enhancement Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770079896
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Arroyo Grande, CA, USA
Phone
8054738221
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fisheries Resources

Reported finances

Revenue
$755,047
Expenses
$756,183
Assets
$400,939
Liabilities
$236,723

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUDE FLEDDERMAN (President)
  • JOHN STEINBECK (Vice President)
  • DON CHARTRAND (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • NEERAJ KUMAR (Director)
  • KAREN WORCESTER (Secretary)
  • LEW LEICHTER (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Ccse doing business as creek lands conservation, works in California's central coast region to restore and conserve coastal watershed ecosystems, to restore and conserve coastal marine ecosystems, and to deliver equitable conservation science education programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Our watershed conservation activities often use Federally listed steelhead trout as a keystone species to inform restoration and monitoring projects in coastal creeks and estuaries. We work with water rights holders to ensure human activities do not compromise healthy watershed functionality. Our coastal marine conservation activities likewise use keystone species such as abalone, oysters, and clams to measure and improve ecosystem functionality. We reach dozens of elementary schools in five school districts with our conservation science educational programs. Our programs bring standards-aligned classroom conservation science lessons to 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th grades. Classroom lessons prepare students for outdoor learning experiences that connect them to the central coast.

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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.8%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 53.7%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.2%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.59; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.8% of revenue deployed · 53.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $406K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.