Half Moon Bay Commercial Fisheries Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474501396
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Half Moon Bay, CA, USA
Phone
6502552063
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$32,475
Expenses
$58,870
Assets
$73,210
Liabilities
$24,416

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • KATE BONZON (BOARD MEMBER)
  • STEVE FITZ (BOARD MEMBER)
  • AMY BROOME (BOARD MEMBER)

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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of this corporation shall be to increase opportunities for local fishing operations to participate in sustainable fishing activities along the west coast of the united states; and to develop those fishing opportunities in a manner that enhances the economic, social, and environmental conditions of fishery participants and fishery resources.

What it reported doing in 2020

Supporting lost gear recovery program to improve ocean conservation and stewardship while building the local fishing economy. Securing access to fishing privileges by managing quota pounds. Promoting awareness for the cultural and economic significance of the local half moon bay commercial fishing fleet.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 61.8%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -81.3%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -49% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -29.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 61.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $36K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2017 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.