The Institute for Bird Populations
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680175012
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Petaluma, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7077893224
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,134,521
- Expenses
- $3,191,336
- Assets
- $998,308
- Liabilities
- $804,490
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RODNEY B SIEGEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- MARTIN BERN (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DEBORAH MILLS (TREASURER AND CFO): $154,675 total reported compensation
- RODNEY B SIEGEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $139,695 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 institute for bird populations enables science-based conservation of species and habitats by studying the abundance, demography, and ecology of birds and other wildlife.
What it reported doing in 2024
Monitoring avian productivity and survivorship (maps). Development and operation of long-term, large-scale avian monitoring programs on birds and their habitats, includes the monitoring avian productivity and survivorships (maps) program that completed its 36th year in 2024 with hundreds of bird monitoring stations operating across north america. Over the years it has yielded hundreds of technical reports and scientific papers, dealing with the ecology, demography, management, and conservation of bird populations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 62
- Accountability: 78
- Sustainability: 21
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.8%; rating input score 77
- Program expense ratio: 75.3%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st 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: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 12th 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: -1.8%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.81; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -7.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 76.8% of revenue deployed · 75.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $155K · 7 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.