A Rocha USA Inc a Rocha USA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311751509
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wheaton, IL, USA
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,117,708
Expenses
$1,099,372
Assets
$834,755
Liabilities
$54,522

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BEN LOWE (Executive Dir.): $77,084 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

A community of christians living out the calling to care for creation and equipping others to do the same through community-based projects, education and research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Conservation initiatives based in the us and conservation education throughout the us: a rocha USA continued or expanded programs, projects, and research in the fields of habitat restoration, marine conservation & pollution and community-based conservation that were centered in Tennessee, California, Florida, and Texas. Independently and in tandem with these conservation initiatives, a rocha developed, conducted, promoted and distributed a broad range of environmental education programs and curriculum both in person and online. Through events, seminars, presentations, conferences and hosted internships, a rocha continues to focus on education as an avenue to advance creation care as it further develops content and platforms to both activate learning and guide action.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 78.2%; rating input score 78; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 1.6%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75% of revenue deployed · 75.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $831K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $77K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.