Climate and Wildfire Institute Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 863588375
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3177624951
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,320,861
- Expenses
- $2,119,021
- Assets
- $3,995,275
- Liabilities
- $33,907
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Caroline Godkin (Executive Director)
- Ken Alex (President)
- John Battles (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Bethany Hannah (External Affairs): $204,312 total reported compensation
- Sarah Caldwell (Impact Program Mgr): $126,686 total reported compensation
- Helen Lahoda (Finance & Ops): $109,646 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
By building a consortium of collaborative partnerships. We operate at the intersections of research, policy, and practice, facilitating collaboration and innovation across sectors to advance climate and wildfire resilience in Western U.S.
What it reported doing in 2024
Wildfire Resilience Collaborative goals, and includes support for CWIs annual Signature Convening focused on wildfire data and technology.CWI Signature ConveningCWI stands at the intersection of research, policy, and practice, serving as a vital nexus for collaboration and innovation in tackling climate and wildfire challenges. Our model requires convening experts from all sectors to stay at the forefront of climate and wildfire issues, supporting coordination across broad initiatives, and crafting/refining actionable strategies for real-world impactall while working with a diverse range of regional groups, Indigenous tribes, and local communities. CWIs Signature Convening is a central element of CWIs mission, (continued on Schedule O)
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 98% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 29
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 72%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: $21.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -60.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.89; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 27.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 25.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -83.2% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -22.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 72% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $204K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $434K reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.