Southern Arizona Buffelgrass Coordination Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263796940
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
Phone
5209552599
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$225,967
Expenses
$442,390
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDY A BRIGHAM PHD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDY A BRIGHAM PHD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $71,100 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The center's mission is to provide a regional information center that emphasizes an integrated management approach to control buffelgrass (pennisetum ciliare) in southern Arizona.

What it reported doing in 2015

The rapid spread of buffelgrass and conversion of fire-resistant desert into flammable grassland is the region's most urgent environmental issue. Buffelgrass not only impacts native ecosystems and conservation efforts, it also threatens life, property, tourism and the regional economy. Ecotourism is a cornerstone of pima county's economy, and attracts 3.5 million visitors every year who contribute $2 billion to the economy and account for 40,000 jobs, or 12 percent of the total wages in pima county. Effective and sustained buffelgrass control is not a challenge that can be met by each jurisdiction acting independently. Sabcc was formed to prioritize and coordinate control across all jurisdictions in a timely and sustainable manner.specific accomplishments include: collaboration between corporate, governmental, volunteer and charitable organizations to better utilize the available resources to meet the needs of the community; creation of the risk assessment geodatabase; and ongoing outreach into the community including beat back buffelgrass day.during the fiscal year ended june 30, 2016, the center:* registered over 1,000 people for the 9th annual beat back buffelgrass day. * organized a second buffelgrass bash that evening that was well attended.* organized 40 buffelgrass removal events with 900 volunteers.* trained over 50 individuals in the certification program for landscape contractors.* successfully completed the fourth year of the fema pre-disaster mitigation grant.* distributed over 10,000 buffelbuster booklets to schools and events.* gave 37 public buffelgrass presentations.* hosted buffelgrass booths at 20 public events.* participated in days of caring (nov 4 & 7), giving tuesday (dec 1), and Arizona gives day (apr 7).

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 93% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.
  • 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 78.9%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -95.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -41% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 78.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $349K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.