Friends of Silver Lake
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 923052082
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2023–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Porterville, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7143298400
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Natural Resources Conservation and Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $108,859
- Expenses
- $59,283
- Assets
- $102,661
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Mark Shoemaker (President)
People named in this filing
- Mark Shoemaker (President)
- Ann Marie Mahoney (Secretary)
- James Mahoney (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Friends of Silver Lake (FOSL) is concerned that the Southern California Edison (SCE) Rush Creek Hydroelectric Powerplant and its activities, in particular it's proposed Modified Rush Creek Hydroelectric Project under FERC relicensing and review, will negatively impact water quality and will directly accelerate accretion below the powerplant at the Rush Creek and Silver Lake delta. FOSL believes the Modified Rush Creek Hydroelectric Project will detrimentally affect endangered or protected species habitats, salmonid spawning areas, fishing, tourism, and Silver Lake water quality as well as potentially impact downstream waterways. Possible downstream impacts could also affect the interests of several CA tribes and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power diversion project at Grant Lake. Any Grant Lake impact could negatively affect Mono Lake.
What it reported doing in 2025
Friends of Silver Lake will make recommendations to federal and state regulatory agencies, to relevant Utility districts, to Southern California Edison and other stakeholders for hydroelectric power plant modifications, precautions, or necessary actions or steps needed to preserve the quality of the Silver Lake environs, habitat and water quality with a special focus between the Rush Creek Hydroelectric Powerplant and Silver Lake and Rush Creek delta.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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 - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the available information about grant readiness state registration leaves an important question unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 72
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 54.5%; rating input score 54
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 45.5%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.73; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 34.6% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 44.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 46.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 54.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $59K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.