Alliance for the Great Lakes

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237104524
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3129390838
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,835,904
Expenses
$6,145,643
Assets
$15,593,092
Liabilities
$968,500

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOEL BRAMMEIER (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • KELLY FARLEY (VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE)
  • MATTHEW ALTSTIEL (VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPM)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOEL BRAMMEIER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $286,370 total reported compensation
  • KELLY FARLEY (VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE): $170,032 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW ALTSTIEL (VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPM): $157,420 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To protect, conserve, and restore the great lakes, ensuring healthy water in the lakes and in our communities for all generations of people and wildlife.

What it reported doing in 2025

Research & analysis: research & analysis supports the alliance's advocacy agendas by pairing data and scientific research with policy recommendations for the lakes. In 2025, the alliance released several reports that showcase these efforts. We released a groundbreaking report on the proliferation of large-scale water users in the great lakes region, such as data centers and agriculture, and called for greater transparency and policy solutions that support economic development while protecting the region's water supply. In conjunction with our partner clean Wisconsin, we released a report showing how thousands of households in Wisconsin are paying higher water costs and suffering increased health risks due to nitrate pollution from livestock farms entering their water supply. As a part of the state revolving fund advocates forum, we co-authored a report that highlighted the past 3 years of the forum's work and documented successes in the effort to gain more equitable access to water infrastructure funding.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.7%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 77.2%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 10.1%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.54; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.7% of revenue deployed · 77.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $286K · 23 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $144K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.