Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942702750
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
5109281959
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arms Control, Peace

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$435,183
Expenses
$396,933
Assets
$216,636
Liabilities
$38,346

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Marj Plumb DrPH (Executive Director)
  • Robert M Gould MD (President)
  • Tova Fuller MD PhD (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Marj Plumb DrPH (Executive Director): $32,554 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

SF Bay PSR works to protect human life from the gravest threats to health and survival. Consequently, we promote public policies that protect human health from the threats of nuclear war other weapons of mass destruction, global environmental degradation, climate change, the epidemic of gun violence other social injustices in our society today.

What it reported doing in 2024

Environmental Health SF Bay PSR works toward a world where everyone is free of the health harms of environmental degradation. We protect health in accord with our nations longstanding democratic values by working in local, state, national, and international arenas to influence public awareness, civic engagement, and the advancement of fair, health- and science-based, societal-wide solutions to our environmental health crises. For example, in 2024, we worked to educate the public and policy makers about the health harms of air pollution and the benefits of electric home appliances for families, particularly for our vulnerable communities, children who suffer from asthma, and elders. This work includes organizing and hosting the Environmental Health Committee meetings where community-based organizations, health professionals and advocates share and support their work, including efforts within communities and at major health institutions and universities, and medical associations and societies. Contd in Sch O.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.6%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 84.9%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th 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: 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: 8.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -43.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.6% of revenue deployed · 84.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $337K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $33K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.