Redwood Parks Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680084901
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Crescent City, CA, USA
Phone
7074649150
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,023,244
Expenses
$2,131,542
Assets
$1,698,103
Liabilities
$189,132

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SALOME MUNOZ MORENO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SALOME MUNOZ MORENO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $79,834 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 foster understanding, enjoyment and stewardship by providing support to our partner agencies - the national park service, California state parks, the u.s. Forest service, and the bureau of land management who are entrusted with the care of northern California's public lands.

What it reported doing in 2024

Dds social recreation grant. Rpc provides the experience nature project in humboldt and del norte counties which will provide transportation and inclusive outdoor education content to children and adolescents with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities (i/dd) in humboldt and del norte counties in order to supplement the greater outdoor access learning (goal) program, participation with humboldt county's forest for all program, junior life guards, and outdoor education at the wolf creek education center. These programs provide park access, outdoor education/experiences, and transportation to all members of the community. Rpc provides inclusive education and training directly to youth and their families through outdoor classroom experiences by utilizing the two outdoor schools, all redwood national and state parks in the area, and county parks. Rpc provides staff who are multi-lingual and will have the ability to serve children and adolescents with a variety of needs. Rpc offers parents and caregivers material and instruction on how to guide their children through outdoor experiences. Rpc ensured that the training includes i/dd-specific courses for families, organization staff, and community members. Rpc provides multiple support methods including videos, coloring books, and interactive lessons. Contractor will also provide opportunities for youth and participants in experience nature to form connections during the inclusive outdoor education opportunities and activities, with the goal of forming lasting friendship connections that will endure beyond the project's activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $74.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 27.9%; rating input score 28; 13th 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: 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.4%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.7%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.