Point Reyes National Seashore Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942228894
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Point Reyes Station, CA, USA
Phone
4156631200
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,972,851
Expenses
$4,395,442
Assets
$6,487,698
Liabilities
$436,893

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Donna Faure (Executive Dir.): $198,064 total reported compensation
  • Heather Clapp (Dir of Development): $137,810 total reported compensation
  • Biret Adden (Education Director): $126,001 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Official Partner to the Point Reyes National Seashore Since 1964, Point Reyes National Seashore Association focuses on three priorities: Youth Education & access, environmental conservation and building a broad community for the people of all ages to learn about the park.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 1964 the Point Reyes National Seashore Association (PRNSA) was formed to help the National Park Service preserve and enhance the Point Reyes National Seashore's extraordinary natural, cultural and recreational resources. We partner with the National Park Service to create opportunities for all people to experience, enhance and preserve Point Reyes National seashore for present and future generations. PRNSA is a cooperating association, which means we are the Seashore's primary nonprofit partner. We Raise funds to support critical resources, preservation projects and offer year round environmental education programs that engage the public in accessing, enjoying and understanding Point Reyes National Seashore. Since our founding PRNSA has raised millions of dollars to support park projects.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.6%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $198K · 18 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.