Business Council of New Orleans River Region

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581661751
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
New Orleans, LA, USA
Phone
5045690607
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,020,243
Expenses
$1,018,425
Assets
$1,527,602
Liabilities
$1,004,517

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • AMY GLOVINSKY (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $307,528 total reported compensation
  • JONATHAN WISBEY (POLICY DIRECTOR): $152,898 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the business council of new orleans & the river region is to serve as a vehicle for business leaders to speak with one principled voice in advocating for a fiscal and public policy environment that invites and sustains (continued on schedule o) economic growth and provides a better quality of life for all who live and work in the new orleans metropolitan area.

What it reported doing in 2025

The business council elevates the visibility of policy concerns that have a material impact on quality of life for all who live and work in the region. It then works to solve them through engagement and advocacy informed by organizational expertise based on facts, data, research and analysis to align with best practices and more effective outcomes. Key 2025 accomplishments included: city finance - developed 2026 budget advocacy agenda, engaged to monitor and require answers and accountability for emerging fiscal crises and provided a strategic leadership grant to fund fiscal experts advising mayor- elect moreno's transition team on balancing the city budget. (continued on schedule o) public safety - supported improved nopd recruitment that contributed to the first projected net gain in nopd force strength since 2017; supported $30m criminal justice technology modernization platform launch; and supported the crime lab director to a significant first-phase reconstruction milestone. Water management - provided strategic advice and advocacy for the full funding and operation of the west power complex; monitored key performance metrics, including the rollout of automated metering; and advocated for the consolidation and sufficient funding of drainage management under swbno. Fire fighter pension fund - required visibility of the fiscal and solvency issues pertaining to the fund; opposed legislation that regressed best practices fund features and increased costs; supported a legislative proposal to require the legislative auditor to study merging the local pension fund with the statewide firefighter pension; continued to press for reform toward efficiency and solvency. Coastal restoration - coordinated and led a coalition to support and advocate for nonpartisan governance of the flood protection authorities and continued advocacy for a science-based coastal master plan. Civil service - supported the completion of the classification and compensation study; analyzed the impact of new merit pay rules; and advocated for new procedural trainins for department heads. Public education - monitored the school board and produced a monthly report of policy developments; engaged the superintendent and board regarding audit findings and fiscal challenges; continued to advocate for policy outcomes that align with the business council's school board policy agenda, specifically including equitable policies for both charter and direct run schools and guidance on issues of school facilities and overcapacity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.3%; rating input score 97; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.2%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 45.2%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.4% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $308K · 22 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.