Great Allegheny Passage Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450588810
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Homestead, PA, USA
Phone
7243099334
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$581,182
Expenses
$349,801
Assets
$1,629,062
Liabilities
$36,604

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRETT HOLLERN (PRESIDENT)
  • BRYAN PERRY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRYAN PERRY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $86,228 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Founded in 1995 to coordinate the completion of the great allegheny passage, a 150-mile non-motorized path connecting pittsburgh and cumberland, Maryland, the great allegheny passage conservancy promotes the great allegheny passage and coordinates, strengthens, and supports the efforts of allied trail partners to ensure a high-quality experience for all those who enjoy it.

What it reported doing in 2024

The great allegheny passage conservancy (conservancy) (formerly the allegheny trail alliance) promoted the 150-mile great allegheny passage (gap) by producing and distributing maps, brochures and trailguide: the official guide to traveling the c&o canal towpath and great allegheny passage; maintained www.gaptrail.org; fielded thousands of inquiries from potential travelers to the gap, and executed a multichannel marketing strategy to attract new and returning travelers. It made grants to local volunteer groups to enhance the gap or address maintenance emergencies that threatened to close it. The conservancy recruited and deployed volunteers to gather trail use patterns along the gap, and analyzed and published that data. It amplified the work of multiple owners and volunteer groups along the entire gap, and promoted the services and attractions available to tourists.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 69.8%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th 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: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.8%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.66; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.7%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42% of revenue deployed · 69.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $244K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $86K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.