Sierra Institute for Community & Environment
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 911818166
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Taylorsville, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5302841022
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Science and Technology N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $13,259,145
- Expenses
- $9,846,499
- Assets
- $8,667,260
- Liabilities
- $1,321,709
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Mary Davidge (Vice President)
- Robert Doty (President)
Highest reported compensation
- JONATHAN KUSEL (Executive Direc): $161,579 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Promoting healthy and sustainable forests and watersheds by investing in the well-being of rural communities and strengthening their participation in natural resource decision-making and programs.
What it reported doing in 2024
Rural Community Development: Rural Community Development focused on planning and rebuilding rural economies throughout rural forested California. We have launched a workforce training program to train workers for a new forest worker economy. This includes training a tribal workforce to advance cultural burning on forest land and ancestral tribal land recovery. We also are managing dought funding from the California Department of Water Resources for communities and collaborative groups throughout the Sierra and Northern Sacramento regions.In Addition we host a 'pathways to the profession' program called Plumas Conservation, Restoration Education in Watersheds bringing 16-18 year old youth from urban and rural areas to do natrual resource projects.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 77
- Sustainability: 67
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.1%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th 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: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 25.7%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 27.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 76.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $10.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 8 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Series program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.