The Watershed Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911767292
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, CA, USA
Phone
5106653430
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,747,034
Expenses
$1,744,548
Assets
$1,156,806
Liabilities
$599,009

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIANA GONZALEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIANA GONZALEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $107,664 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 watershed project educates and inspires communities to protect their local watersheds.

What it reported doing in 2024

Epa wildcat: our project aims to empower underserved communities to participate in the planning, design, and implementation of the wildcat creek watershed action plan 2040 (wccap 2040). Contra costa county's wildcat creek watershed faces significant environmental and social challenges, necessitating a comprehensive update to the existing wildcat creek restoration action plan (wrap) initiated in 2010. Specifically, our focus lies on historically under-resourced communities in the lower parts of the watershed, which have been disproportionately overlooked and are most affected by environmental and societal issues related to the creek. Through our efforts, we will enhance their involvement in the wccap 2040 process, ensuring their voices are heard and their needs are addressed.

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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.2%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 88.3%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.1%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.2% of revenue deployed · 88.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.