The Escondido Creek Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330497525
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Escondido, CA, USA
Phone
7604719354
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,541,729
Expenses
$1,378,724
Assets
$63,536,243
Liabilities
$75,431

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANN VAN LEER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LISA RUDER (PRESIDENT)
  • RICHARD MURPHY (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANN VAN LEER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $151,723 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 mission of the escondido creek conservancy is to preserve and restore the escondido creek watershed. Vision: through the conservancy's leadership, the escondido creek watershed will become a model of vibrant urban communities and viable natural ecosystems thriving together.

What it reported doing in 2024

The escondido creek watershed invasive plant control, restoration, and fire prevention program: the project, by the escondido creek conservancy (conservancy), will address invasive, non-native plant species across the escondido creek watershed in north san diego county. It will primarily utilize mechanical and chemical treatment of invasive, non-native plants in nature preserves owned and managed by the grantee, in riparian areas, along 8 miles of escondido creek, from upper to mid watershed. It will also treat invasive plants on neighboring, privately-owned lands in order to accomplish watershed-scale control of certain plants and engage the community in conservation. Retreatments and monitoring of progress will ensure long-term maintenance of gains. The work will include cutting with hand tools and chainsaws, painting and/or targeted spraying of stumps with herbicides, replanting with native riparian vegetation in a few selected areas, and working with neighbors for treatment and maintenance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.6%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 46.08; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69% of revenue deployed · 69.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $963K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.