Hawaii Conservation Alliance Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205591648
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Honolulu, HI, USA
Phone
8089447417
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,360,882
Expenses
$973,646
Assets
$2,007,002
Liabilities
$28,855

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RANDALL KENNEDY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • EMMA ANDERS (EXECUTIVE DI): $105,117 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 2006, the hawai'i conservation alliance foundation ("hcaf") is a 501(c)(3) non-profit with the purpose and mission to support and advance the capacity building, native ecosystem and biocultural conservation work of the hawai'i conservation alliance ("hca") through fundraising, advocacy, and strategic outreach and communications.

What it reported doing in 2024

Hcaf hosted the 2024 hawai'i conservation conference with over 1400 professional and student attendees. The hcaf continued implementation of the conservation career compass program to support students and emerging professionals in navigating their career pathways and the ahupuaa accelerator initiative to support place-based stewardship. Additionally, hcaf supported core operations and project implementation for the hawai'i conservation alliance including facilitating working groups to assess and expand effective conservation in hawai'i, identify and share best practices for conservation field work, and to ensure that biocultural resource stewardship is grounded in place and informed by the best available science and cultural practice. The hcaf also supported the laukahi network to coordinate native plant conservation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 78.9%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 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: 28.5%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.06; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.8%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57% of revenue deployed · 78.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $768K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $105K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.