Great Rivers Habitat Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431893744
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3149181007
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$415,631
Expenses
$314,480
Assets
$563,179
Liabilities
$5,794

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS HYAMS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES M CHECKETT (EXECUTIVE DI): $151,408 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Great rivers habitat alliance (grha) was founded in 2000 in order to directly combat the growing consumption of the 100-year confluence floodplain through commercial development. Primarily comprised of st. Charles county floodplain land owners, grha tackles the policies permitting wholesale floodplain development and encourages thoughtful alternatives.

What it reported doing in 2023

Great rivers habitat alliance implements a number of initiatives dedicated to preserving the natural resources of the floodplain. We strive to educate the public on the importance of limiting big river flood plain development. Our commitment to habitat preservation is an attempt to maintain the rich biodiversity that resides in the floodplain. Hundreds of species reside in the Mississippi river. Preservation of their habitat is essential for their survival. If most of the floodable land in the confluence were to be encased by levees, where would the water go? It would most likely flow behind other existing levees protecting urban and business districts in st. Louis. Great rivers habitat alliance proposes to create the confluence flood plain joint venture partnership . This loose partnership of public agencies and private organizations will develop and initiate the goal of preserving, restoring and maintaining the confluence flood plain for its agricultural heritage, wildlife habitat, and water storage capacity. Land preservation will be conducted on a landscape level though a series of land and conservation easement acquisitions/donations on a willing seller/donor basis.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.7%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 66%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 25th 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: 24.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.1%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.7% of revenue deployed · 66% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 24 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $208K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $151K · 25 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2023
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.