Santa Barbara Bucket Brigade

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
831156413
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Phone
8058952355
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$697,127
Expenses
$836,728
Assets
$970,227
Liabilities
$190,697

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Mara Sweeney (President)
  • John Abraham Powell (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • John Abraham Powell (Executive Director): $165,674 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Santa Barbara Bucket Brigade was created to prepare for and respond to natural disasters and community crises through volunteer training, coordination and deployment.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Santa Barbara Bucket Brigade mobilized 1,487 volunteers who contributed 7,315 hours of community service in 2025. The Bucket Brigade also continued to build its programs that develop volunteer deployment and leadership capacity through climate-adaptive community restoration projects in Santa Barbara County. At the Bucket Brigade Academy, 43 student leaders completed 2,334 hours of training and 72 ASHI/SOLO first-aid certifications were awarded. The top program graduates were hired as "Volunteer Coordinators" to lead weekly volunteer projects in Santa Barbara County.Continued on Schedule O The Humanitarian Garden Project: Student Volunteer Coordinators led 275 volunteers through 1,101 hours of community service, restoring one acre of a large watershed ecosystem. The Walk Montecito Project 0.75 miles of new safe-routes-to-school trails were built to restore pedestrian access and improve community safety in the area affected by the 2018 debris flow. The Humanitarian Farm Project: Student Volunteer Coordinators led 601 volunteers contributed 2,103 who grew 17,392 pounds of organic produce and donated it all to local food-aid in Santa Barbara County. Volunteer Leadership Services for the City of Goleta at the Ellwood Mesa Restoration Project where student Volunteer Coordinators led 234 volunteers contributed 1,777 hours to restore a major winter nesting site for Monarch butterflies planting 2,300 trees and native plant seedlings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.4%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -20%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.16; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.8%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.4% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $672K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $166K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.