Washington Resource Conservation and Development C

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911810332
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Yakima, WA, USA
Phone
5095711722
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,728,012
Expenses
$1,940,972
Assets
$430,008
Liabilities
$400,435

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TONY CRAVEN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JOHN KEN TOLONEN (DIRECTOR)
  • ANNA LAEL (DIRECTOR)
  • ALI ZAIDI (DIRECTOR)

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

To empower communities by providing them with the tools, resources, capacity, and connections necessary to adapt to the changing world.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provides communities across Washington, with critical technical assistance, facilitation, and resources to help communities reduce wildfire risk and build long-term resilience. This work directly contributes to Washingtons 10-Year Wildland Fire Protection Strategic Plan and the Washington State Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network Program goals. WRCD supported CWPP planning and updates in 17 counties across Washington, providing facilitation, technical assistance, and guidance tailored to each communitys needs. WRCD co-funded CWPP development in 3 counties, hosted 5 CWPP Learning Sessions with peer learning opportunities on best practices and implementation strategies, held 3 CWPP sessions to provide direct support for community leaders and planners, and presented at 4 partner learning opportunities/webinars.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 86% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 40% for direct work, and 60% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.9%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.93; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.9% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.