San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943306697
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
San Mateo, CA, USA
Phone
6503215812
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$711,421
Expenses
$688,365
Assets
$571,702
Liabilities
$9,036

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHELE BEASLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHELE BEASLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $129,744 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To inspire people to care for, learn about and enjoy san mateo county parks. We fund projects, programs and volunteer efforts throughout the 23 san mateo county parks, from improving playgrounds and interpretive facilities to stewarding the parks' natural environments.

What it reported doing in 2024

See schedule oall of the foundation's programs have a single focus-promoting, advocating for, preserving, and improving san mateo county parks. The support from the foundation is directed towards:- maintaining and improving park infrastructure;- providing environmental educational experiences particularly for underserved youth;- protecting and restoring habitat for threatened and endangered species;- supporting volunteer programs;- managing the san mateo county parks commemorative bench and table program.this support is executed both directly through the foundation's own specific programs and indirectly through its contributions to san mateo county parks.the foundation funds san mateo county parks' presence on the free app stqry, pays for the park entry fees for san mateo county health patients as part of the foundation's park prescription program, has provided part of the funding for the removal of diseased and dangerous trees at coyote point, and supported major infrastructure improvements at memorial park. The foundation awards small grants to county park rangers to purchase wildfire-prevention and other tools, repair bridges and culverts, and install new ada amenities such as water fountains. In environmental conservation, among other efforts, the foundation supports stewardship of the natural resources at huddart park. Conservation efforts have focused on the removal of fire-prone french broom which has allowed iris, monkeyflower, and honyesuckle to return on its own.the foundation sponsors "bicycle sunday", a year-round event that closes canada road to automobiles every sunday so cyclists have safe, car-free access to the road.the foundation also supports volunteer groups in accomplishing their missions ranging from training docents to organizing groups for litter cleanup, to providing tools for weeding and replanting with native plants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 41% for direct work, and 59% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.5%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 84.5%; rating input score 85; 36th 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: Pass
    • 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: 3.2%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.83; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.8%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.5% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $477K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $130K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.