Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680233272
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Mount Shasta, CA, USA
Phone
5309265655
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$453,216
Expenses
$290,479
Assets
$256,406
Liabilities
$4,036

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Lucas (President)

People named in this filing

  • Davis Bowden (Board Director)
  • Laura Harnish (Board Member)
  • John Sanguinetti (Secretary)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mt. Shasta Bioregional Ecology is a community of people inspired to honor, protect, and restore our world-renowned mountain environment. We advocate strong enforceable protections for our mountain, for clean air and water, for healthy forests and wildlife habitat. We do this by fostering ecological and community resilience, supporting local stewardship and restoration activities, incorporating cultural and community values as the foundation of our actions, engaging in intergenerational education, and stewarding our home ecosystem.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community Fire Resiliency: This program strengthens wildfire resilience in Siskiyou County by deepening community relationships and expanding on-the-ground mitigation efors-all provided at no cost to participants. MSBEC leads and coordinates collaborative efforts with partner organizations, agencies, and residents to assess needs, build local capacity, and organize events that foster neighborhood connection and cohesion. Free educational workshops empower residents with the knowledge and tools to prepare for wildfire risks. These efforts directly support physical resilience projects-including fuels reduction, home hardening, and improving ingress and egress---tailored to the unique needs of each subcommunity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, 1% for grants, and 24% for member benefits.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.1%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 73.1%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $236.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: 35.9%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 45.6% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.1% of revenue deployed · 73.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $212K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.