Sequoia Parks Conservancy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 941379633
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Three Rivers, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5595653757
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,833,068
- Expenses
- $3,679,170
- Assets
- $7,586,128
- Liabilities
- $178,223
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- TAMARA MARKS (DEVELPMENT DIRECTO): $136,984 total reported compensation
- SAVANNAH BOIANO (Executive Dir.): $122,526 total reported compensation
- KRISTINA GOLDSTONE (FINANCE DIRECTO): $87,807 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 sequoia parks conservancy funds and enables projects and programs that protect, preserve, and provide access to the natural and cultural resources of sequoia and kings canyon national parks.
What it reported doing in 2024
In 2023 the sequoia parks conservancy funded programs that focused on public access and inclusivity; visitor safety and preventative search and rescue and nature wildlife stewardship.rangers in the classroom, popular with elementary school administrators, teachers and students alike. Twenty-five thousand tulare and kings county students get first-hand, grade-level learning with a ranger focused on natural and cultural resources of sequoia and kings canyon. Participating students are given a park entrance fee waiver to encourage them to bring their families to the parks after their ranger in the classroom visit.maintaining, updating and improving park accessible trails and experience is a core value. The conservancy created the first-of-its-kind deaf and hard-of-hearing tour of crystal cave, financially supported maintaining and rebuilding accessible trails for those with mobility constraints, and promoted those for the public.seasonal safety in these two parks is always a priority and needs support. The conservancy supported search and rescue with swiftwater training and technical equipment.we are proud to support the park's wild bear project and the restoration of high elevation lake ecosystems, to name a few projects. These highly impactful programs preserve and protect park wildlife and the public's ability to experience them for present and future generations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 81% 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.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 69
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 71.3%; rating input score 71
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 23.9%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.06; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 71.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $137K · 21 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.