Richardson Grove Interpretive Assoc Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942882273
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2012
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Garberville, CA, USA
Phone
7072473378
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,289
Expenses
$14,819
Assets
$32,648

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Richardson grove interpretive association was formed to promote the educational and interpretive activities of the California state park system in the southern humboldt and northern mendocino counties area. This has been accomplished through producing and distributing educational and interpretive materials; acquiring and displaying materials pertaining to the history and/or natural history of the area for the express purpose of donating and adding to the interpretive collections of the state parks system; developing and maintaining a suitable park library in the visitor centers; assisted financially and through volunteer staffing in the establishment and operation of such facilities; purchasing and donating to the state parks system needed computer equipment and supplies for accuracy in operation of the visitor centers and in aiding the state of California in conserving, developing and interpreting the state parks system for the benefit of the public.financing for accomplishing these a

What it reported doing in 2012

See schedule o.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 81% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 22
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 23.7%; rating input score 24
  • Program expense ratio: 19.7%; rating input score 20

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -20.6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.2; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -29.2% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 23.7% of revenue deployed · 19.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2012
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 24/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.