Santa Ana Watershed Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460495604
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Riverside, CA, USA
Phone
9517801012
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,972,670
Expenses
$4,065,939
Assets
$4,281,823
Liabilities
$862,316

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Brian J Brady (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Brian J Brady (Executive Director): $191,557 total reported compensation
  • Melody Aimar (Bio Prog. Manager): $162,629 total reported compensation
  • Jennette El Morsy (Adm. Svcs. Manager): $133,848 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Santa Ana River Watershed Association SAWA develops, coordinates and implements natural resource programs that support a sustainable ecosystem and social benefits from the San Bernardino Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. SAWA is committed to the protection and improvement of areas within the Santa Ana River watershed. Major FOCI of SAWA are the removal of invasive species, which is a significant problem throughout the watershed, native habitat enhancement and the protection of endangered and threatened species.

What it reported doing in 2024

Biological monitoring - SAWA biologists play an active role in the watershed program. Biologists monitor invasive removal projects to protect both endangered and more common wildlife species. They actively manage field projects involving avian, herpetological and mammal populations. They also manage a monitoring program for the endangered Least Bell's Vireo that includes surveys, nest monitoring and Brown-headed Cowbird management: 42 traps were deployed, in which 1,572 Cowbirds were removed over 3,162 trap days.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.3%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.05; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.7%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.9% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 11 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.