Glen Canyon Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742429545
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Page, AZ, USA
Phone
9286403900
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$974,224
Expenses
$1,578,203
Assets
$2,845,885
Liabilities
$2,383,579

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEROD VIERS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEBBIE MOSES (EXECUTIVE DI): $75,024 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

As the official nonprofit partner of glen canyon national recreation area and rainbow bridge national monument and a partner of bureau of land management in southern Utah and southwestern Colorado, glen canyon conservancy is dedicated to enriching connections between visitors and area residents to this unique landscape. Through the promotion of interpretive sales, diverse recreational opportunities and educational initiatives, we foster stewardship of the history, culture and natural beauty of glen canyon for current and future generations. Gccs retail outlets are located at carl hayden visitor center in page, navajo bridge interpretive center in marble canyon and at our headquarters in page. Gcc also operates the powell museum & archives. In addition, gcc operated retail outlets at escalante interagency visitor center, kanab visitor center, cannonville visitor center and paria contact station in Utah until september 30, 2024. Gcc also operated a retail outlet at canyons of the ancient

What it reported doing in 2024

Gcc raises funds through sales of interpretive materials through its physical and digital store presence as well as grant awards and donations to support the educational mission of its government partners.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -62%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.8; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.84; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.8%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.