Offshore Wind California
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 842096843
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Menlo Park, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5106814483
- Rating
- 40
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,240,602
- Expenses
- $1,424,995
- Assets
- $582,816
- Liabilities
- $43,792
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Adam Stern (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Adam Stern (Executive Director): $202,250 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The organization promotes policies and builds public support for responsible development of offshore wind power in California CA. As a coalition of industry partners its members are dedicated to providing an independent voice and industry expertise to facilitate offshore wind deployment off CAs coast. The organization engages in public education and advocacy in support of this renewable resource as a part of a comprehensive solution to CAs energy needs.
What it reported doing in 2024
Public education communications research and advocacy promoting policies and public support for responsible development and environmentally sustainable deployment of offshore wind power for California.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 82% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 20
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: -14.9%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 29.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 25.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $202K · 5 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $693K reported
- Consistency: 24 of 39 current checks pass · 15 findings to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 5 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLobbying column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.