Bluecommons Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
991060400
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
4083150660
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,312,508
Expenses
$500,806
Assets
$1,811,702
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • KATHY ROBB (BOARD CHAIR)
  • PETER CULP (TREASURER)
  • RICARDO BAYON (BOARD MEMBER)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See schedule oblue commons is a nonprofit organization that provides flexible, innovative financing to unlock high-impact water conservation and sustainability projects within the Colorado river basin.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, bluecommons deployed catalytic capital across the Colorado river basin to advance tribal water infrastructure, riparian restoration, and community-scale water conservation. Through its tribal water infrastructure and restoration fund, bluecommons structured low-interest loans, recoverable grants, and program-related investments to finance projects that would otherwise go unfunded including pipeline conversions, irrigation efficiency upgrades, and native vegetation restoration on tribal lands. Bluecommons also deepened its partnership with the fort yuma quechan tribe on river restoration work along the lower Colorado, developed a borderlands conservation and restoration fund, and expanded its network of tribal, philanthropic, and institutional partners. These efforts reflect bluecommons' core model: using blended finance to unlock water projects that generate measurable conservation outcomes, restore ecosystems, and build long-term resilience for communities facing accelerating climate pressure.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 90
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 21.6%; rating input score 22
  • Program expense ratio: 99.8%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 78.3%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.62; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 21.6% of revenue deployed · 99.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $500K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.