Sonoma County Conservation Action
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680251911
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Santa Rosa, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7075718566
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $167,568
- Expenses
- $154,184
- Assets
- $60,243
- Liabilities
- $129,392
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Neal Fishman (President)
People named in this filing
- Una Glass (Executive Dir.)
- Janis Watkins (Secretary/Treas)
- Neal Fishman (President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Sonoma County Conservation Action's mission is to better our quality of life in Sonoma County for all generations, through educating and directly engaging the public on local environmental issues and policies using grassroots organizing.
What it reported doing in 2024
Sonoma County Conservation Action (SCCA) is the nonpartisan, advocacy arm of Sonoma Countys environmental movement. SCCAs full time organizing staff has knocked on more than 50,000 doors each year for the past 15 years, identifying environmentally concerned county residents, distributing issue and candidate information, generating membership and mobilizing residents to write to decision-makers and to volunteer for electoral campaigns. One of SCCAs driving goals is to create and maintain environmental policies of the local City Councils and Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. This is done through the efforts of our canvassers, who door-knock, hand-shake and identify progressive voters months before every election. Conservation Action then watchdogs by holding the local elected officials accountable by publishing a political report card, which grades our electeds on their voting for the environment for the year, and on how well they are listening to their constituents.Sonoma County Conservation Action will continue to steward the environmental vote by knocking on tens of thousands of doors each year, ushering in the next wave of environmentally concerned residents. Furthermore, we will continue to organize neighborhood precinct teams to facilitate a strong environmental vote. Conservation Actions commitment to grassroots organizing in Sonoma County will ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy our scenic coast, majestic redwoods, and rolling hills.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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. Some related-organization disclosures are missing and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.3%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 91.6%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.15; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 18.5% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 84.3% of revenue deployed · 91.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $141K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and related organizations
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.