Glacial Hills RC&D

Legal name: Glacial Hills Resource Conservation & Development Region Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
481103964
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hays, KS, US
Phone
(785) 650-1330
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,098,639
Expenses
$1,665,643
Assets
$4,015,684
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY HOWELL (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID KEY (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GARY SATTER (EXECTUTIVE DIRECTOR): $85,828 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 provide professional assistance with the development and delivery of conservation district programs aimed at preservation, conservation, and enhancement of our natural resources.

What it reported doing in 2024

Regional economic development and small business development programs provide business development planning, financial assistance and technical assistance to entrepreneurs wanting to start or expand a growing small business. The glacial hills food center is a shared use food processing facility that provides space, equipment, and planning assistance to food entrepreneurs starting or operating food businesses. The glacial hill business resource center provided support, assistance and business planning to entrepreneurs and business owners with one-on-one business management coaching to small business owners in a five county region of northeast Kansas. The shawnee county e-community is a program that cooperated with the Kansas center for entrepreneurship to assist businesses in shawnee county with business planning and financial assistance by hosting workshops and facilitating five loans for $358,000.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 73% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 53% for direct work, and 47% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.9%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.7%; rating input score 99; 47th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -51.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.41; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $86K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.