Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board

Legal name: Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Bo

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204642000
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Yakima, WA, US
Phone
(509) 453-4104
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fisheries Resources

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$535,540
Expenses
$533,993
Assets
$237,244
Liabilities
$191,184

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALEX CONLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALEX CONLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $127,211 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 recover fish and wildlife populations in the Yakima River Basin through collaborative planning, habitat restoration, and community engagement.

What it reported doing in 2024

Key accomplishments included: 1) maintained a consensus-based non-profit organization governed by city, county and tribal government representatives, 2) ran a competitive grant program used by the Washington salmon recovery funding board to allocate over $3 million to the salmon recovery projects in the yakima basin, 3) worked with the bureau of land management to provide blm funds to aquatic restoration projects on and in proximity to blm lands in the yakima basin, 4) convened the yakima bull trout working group, 5) provided technical support and partner input to the yakima basin integrated plan and its habitat subcommittee, 6) supported development of priority projects that implement the board's 2009 yakima steelhead recovery plan.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% 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

STRONG - 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: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 74.3%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $53.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th 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: 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.81; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.8%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 74.1% of revenue deployed · 74.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $397K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $127K · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.