Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470847844
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Baker, NV, USA
Phone
7752347171
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$637,088
Expenses
$512,742
Assets
$542,499
Liabilities
$2,185

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LORI DREW (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRANDI ROBERTS (EXECUTIVE DI): $107,361 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To recognize, conserve, preserve, and interpret the historical, cultural, archaeological, natural, scenic, and recreational resources of the great basin national heritage area.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, great basin heritage area partnership worked with Nevada department of transportation and Utah department of transportation to design and install "entering great basin national heritage area" signs along major highways at ten (10) entry points to the heritage area. The 24,250 paid for sign fabrication and installation at the five entry points to millard county in Utah, with those tasks performed by a udot-approved contractor. For the white pine county entry points, ndot donated the fabrication and installation services, effectively matching the funds paid by the heritage area. Entry point signage was identified as a need in the heritage area's original management plan (2013) and reconfirmed in the 2023 strategic plan, with the goal of raising awareness of the heritage area for residents and visitors alike.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 58.4%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.6%; rating input score 94; 44th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.5%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.9%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.5% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47% of revenue deployed · 58.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $299K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.