Friends of Plumas Wilderness

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680239283
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Quincy, CA, USA
Phone
5302832939
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$243,757
Expenses
$151,708
Assets
$218,146
Liabilities
$6,465

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RON LOGAN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • RON LOGAN (PRESIDENT)
  • DENISE BATTAGIN (VICE PRESIDE)
  • DARLA DERUITER (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To study, explore, and maintain the integrity of natural ecosystems where the sierra and cascades meet.

What it reported doing in 2024

A. Bear fire photo project 5509: photo-documenting forest changes following the 2020 north complex fire from prominent viewpoints around the middle fork feather river, a charter wild & scenic river. B. Building 30x30 capacity in the sierra-cascade region 13,015: working with local and regional partners to identify strategies in the northern sierra region to protect 30% of lands and waters for nature by 2030. C. Plumas national forest advocacy & education project 15,000: increase advocacy and education for the plumas national forest. To achieve this project goal, friends of plumas wilderness collaborated with other local advocacy organizations and partners to strategize ways to protect the plumas national forest from threats of development.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 61%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 37.8%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.44; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 34.9% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38% of revenue deployed · 61% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $93K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.