San Francisco Estuary Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942951373
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, CA, USA
Phone
5107467360
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,594,340
Expenses
$19,110,723
Assets
$18,188,462
Liabilities
$11,791,585

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Warner Chabot (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Warner Chabot (Executive Director): $182,526 total reported compensation
  • Karen Verpeet (Program Managing Dir): $176,504 total reported compensation
  • David Senn (Program Director): $170,149 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Provide scientific support and tools for decision making and communication through collaborative efforts.

What it reported doing in 2024

Environmental Informatics(EI): Working with both internal and external collaborators, Environmental Informatics operationalizes credible scientific knowledge using innovative technologies. The program is a union of multiple disciplines, organized to promote data management, visualization, analysis, and software development in support of ongoing and emerging needs.Environmental Informatics staff guide statewide technology efforts aimed to promote data transparency and exchange. They enjoy a strong track record of success and salience in a highly competitive technology environment. By augmenting the capacity of key public partners, the team credibly translates authoritative aquatic ecosystem data into dynamic, visually stimulating information to guide and evaluate environmental planning, management, and regulatory decisions.Aquatic Science Center (ASC): Was formed to assist with the efficient delivery of financial, scientific, monitoring, and information management support functions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.8%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.8% of revenue deployed · 82.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $15.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $183K · 26 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.4M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.