North Coast Resource Conservation & Development Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680484941
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Phone
7079784149
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,601,902
Expenses
$2,511,266
Assets
$6,514,107
Liabilities
$482,707

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Peter Braudrick (President)
  • Darcie Mahoney (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Oona Heacock (Director): $107,930 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to support resource protection and community sustainability in Napa Marin Sonoma Mendocino and Lake Counties of northern California.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fire Resiliency: Working principally with small landowners in Napa Sonoma Mendocino and Lake Counties and small portions of Yolo and Colusa Counties to implement practices to reduce fire threats and improve landscape-level fire resiliency in timberlands and rangelands. 2024: $63,227 and expected to grow appreciably in 2025. Russian River Confluence: Watershed -wide collaboration on building drought and flood resiliency in light of climate change and ensuring connections on watershed restoration rehabilitation best management practices implementation and monitoring. Other small programs include Technical assistance to farmers Tree Planting and Urban Greening and general conservation education and outreach.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 94% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.1%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 96.4%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2,150.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 70.8%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.59; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 28.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 50.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 69.9% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.1% of revenue deployed · 96.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 8 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.