San Francisco Bay Wildlife Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943039253
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Newark, CA, USA
Phone
4085151889
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$201,401
Expenses
$233,417
Assets
$215,481
Liabilities
$564

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Cecilia D Craig (President and USFWS Liaison)
  • Namit Saksena (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Cecilia D Craig (President and USFWS Liaison)
  • Namit Saksena (Vice President)
  • Chris Kitting (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Nurture in the public an understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, its natural and cultural history, and to conserve, preserve, and restore bay lands as essential wildlife habitat. Environmental Education supports conservation awareness and builds stewardship in local communities. Biology programs support habitat preservation and restoration. Long term partnerships with Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and local corporations provide major funding for these efforts. Efforts also support public access and conservation education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Warm Springs Vernal Pool Monitoring and Habitat Restoration, funded by Wildlife Heritage Foundation. For Warm Springs, Wildlife Heritage Foundation description: Warm Springs is a unit of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The income from the Wildlife Heritage Foundation funds a Wildlife Biologist Associate position to help monitor and protect endangered and threatened species in this unique vernal pool habitat. Primary responsibilities: conduct invasive weed management including hand pulling and herbicide application, assist with surveys including hydrological monitoring of vernal pools, aquatic surveys for vernal pool biota including tadpole shrimp and California tiger salamanders; vernal pool vegetation surveys; summer vegetation surveys; and invasive weed surveys. Other responsibilities include seed collection and processing, data management, cross support with other Refuges, data entry, report preparation, and supply and equipment inventories.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 85% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

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: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.1%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -15.9%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.1% of revenue deployed · 79.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $185K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.