Lakesides River Park Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
912156461
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Lakeside, CA, USA
Phone
6194434770
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,835,388
Expenses
$1,087,450
Assets
$14,071,849
Liabilities
$45,464

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIE TURKO (CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CHRISTINA BURNETT (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIE TURKO (CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $103,953 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to preserve and restore the biological integrity and beauty of the san diego river while integrating recreation, educational, and cultural opportunities for our region.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, our top three program expenditures served to make progress in the following areas: 1. Worked with property owners to remove invasive plants along the San Diego River and its tributaries, to protect local waterways and restore the biological integrity of the watershed. 2. Built out the San Diego River Science Field Station, a new facility with public meeting rooms. 3. Managed vegetation along the San Diego River for the purpose of fire prevention, lifting trees and clearing brush to minimize potential fuel for wildfires.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 89% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.5%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 80.1%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 40.8%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.94; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.5% of revenue deployed · 80.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $871K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $104K · 12 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $117K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 47/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.