Grand Canyon Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860179548
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Grand Canyon, AZ, USA
Phone
9286382481
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,918,741
Expenses
$15,506,746
Assets
$42,054,054
Liabilities
$1,786,553

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH SILKES (CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • SUSAN HUHN (INTERIM CEO (LEFT 2/28/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH SILKES (CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $318,336 total reported compensation
  • BONNIE BAKER (CHIEF PHILANTHROPY OFFICER): $217,607 total reported compensation
  • MINYIN HART (CFO): $189,775 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

As the official philanthropic and collaborative partner of the grand canyon national park, grand canyon conservancy's mission is to inspire generations of park champions to cherish and support the natural and cultural wonder of the grand canyon.

What it reported doing in 2025

Aid to national park service program - in 2025, gcc donated 6% of annual retail sales revenue to provide direct aid to nps towards interpretive, educational, scientific, and historical projects. This funding supported 265 days of indigenous cultural demonstrations by 107 demonstrators. Additionally, 22 indigenous cultural performances were held by members from din (navajo), havasupai, hualapai, hopi, zuni, and white mountain apache tribes, and reached 4,757 visitors. Further, 42 ranger-led field trips for 1,008 students in gateway communities, particularly tribal and title i schools, were hosted at the south rim, connecting the youth to the canyon's cultural and natural wonders. Gcc direct aid funding was also utilized to collect 1,281 square miles of lidar data in grand canyon national park, which was used to identify possible groundwater flow paths, springs, and shallow groundwater across the landscape. Gcc also raised funds to support nps priority projects and emerging needs. Following the dragon bravo fire that left devastating impacts on the north rim, gcc collected donations and funded recovery efforts including resources and support for evacuees, the demolition and removal of hazardous materials from the former north rim visitor center, support for critical post-fire science and resource management projects during the government shutdown, and cleaning and remediation of 45 nps facilities, residential, and administrative buildings. With support from gcc, nps also completed the second round of its dye tracing study. Dyes were injected into two sinkholes, while 43 springs and stream sites were monitored over a two-year period. This work accounted for 858 nps staff field days and is already improving understanding of groundwater flow, drinking water protection, and wildfire impacts. Understanding where water flows today helps protect the canyon tomorrow. Gcc funding also enabled preventive search and rescue efforts, and in 2025, trail patrol teams logged 2,583 hours, assisted 444 hikers, made 97,749 general contacts, and took 18,400 preventive actions to help visitors make safer choices before emergencies occurred. Gcc support also advanced critical trail work including repairs to a washed-out section of the bright angel trail, the installation of log benches on the south rim to support ranger talks, and maintenance and repairs to over 30 miles of greenway trails along the south rim.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 61.5%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.71; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.7%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 61.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $9.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $318K · 27 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.4M reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.