Whitebark Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 471310886
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Mammoth Lakes, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7602100371
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,658,654
- Expenses
- $6,959,244
- Assets
- $3,185,810
- Liabilities
- $2,738,508
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LAURA BEARDSLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JANET HATFIELD (FOREST HEALTH PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $126,500 total reported compensation
- LAURA BEARDSLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $123,096 total reported compensation
- JESSE O'DELL (ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER): $110,411 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To achieve our mission to take action, cultivate partnerships, and empower communities to create and sustain resilient landscapes for future generations, whitebark institute enhances the sustainability of eastern sierra forests, landscapes, and communities faced with growing threats from wildfire and other impacts of a changing climate.
What it reported doing in 2024
Developed the eastern sierra climate & communities resilience project in partnership with inyo national forest and local agencies. Conducted environmental planning assessment, document preparation, and community engagement to support nepa. Provided project management to support development of the environmental assessment and developed capacity and practical experience opportunities to enhance local workforce development. Guided collaboration among partners to identify and pursue strategies for sustainable funding and biomass utilization required for landscape and community scale wildfire resilience in the eastern sierra.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 83% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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: 95
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.1%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 92%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $2,106.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- 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: Fail
- 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: -4.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.86; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 68.8% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 62.4% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 61.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 96.1% of revenue deployed · 92% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.