Pollinator Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943283967
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4153621137
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,450,495
Expenses
$3,707,232
Assets
$6,194,145
Liabilities
$488,121

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kelly Bills (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kelly Bills (Executive Director): $116,327 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Pollinator Partnership (P2) is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization- the largest organization in the world dedicated exclusively to promote the health of pollinators, critical to food and ecosystems, through conservation, education, and research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Agriculture: Pollinator Partnership hosts a number of programs to support pollinators inagricultural landscapes. Bee Friendly Farming (BFF) is a certificationprogram from Pollinator Partnership working with farmers to help protect, preserve and promote pollinator health. BFF provides guidelines forfarmers and growers to promote pollinator health on their lands. Theprogram is also overseen by a task force of experts from the NorthAmerican Pollinator Protection Campaign (NAPPC) including scientists andfarmers, as it strives to set standards for sustainable farming on importantconcepts like planting pollinator food resources, providing nesting habitat, and incorporating an integrated pest management strategy. BFF helpsensure the future of both pollinators and sustainable agriculture as itexpands across North America and around the globe. The California AgLand Network for Pollinators (CAN for Pollinators) program supportsproducers who are enthusiastic about increasing pollinator habitat andreceiving financial and technical support for implementing on-farm practicesthat support pollinators in California. Through a USDA NRCS RegionalConservation Partnership Program, CAN for Pollinators is offering contractsto distribute over $1,000,000 to Californias farmers and ranchers to helpthem build habitat on their property. Lastly, the Enhanced Farmland forPollinators, Crops, and Soil program, funded through the CaliforniaDepartment of Food and Agriculture Pollinator Habitat Program, supportsprojects that will be designed so that regionally appropriate species arechosen to support pollinators and soils. Priority will be given to plantspecies that have high establishment rates, low cost, drought tolerance, low maintenance, and soil health benefits. Pollinator Partnership, CAFF, WFA are excited to offer webinars and onsite trainings, and can offersupport in IPM implementation and monitoring.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 83%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 80.1%; rating input score 80; 21st 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.67; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.3% of revenue deployed · 83% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $116K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.