Resilience Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043491218
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dedham, MA, USA
Phone
7813263039
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$444,474
Expenses
$432,636
Assets
$232,562
Liabilities
$94,547

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALLYSON QUINLAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CLERK)
  • LANCE GUNDERSON (PRESIDENT AND EDITOR IN CHIEF)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALLYSON QUINLAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CLERK): $64,542 total reported compensation
  • CRAIG ALLEN (BOARD MEMBER): $15,000 total reported compensation
  • PHIL TAYLOR (CLERK UNTIL 10/2024): $4,440 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Composed of people from many disciplines collaborating to explore dynamics of social-ecological systems. The knowledge developed encompasses key concepts of reslience, adaptability, and transformability and provides a foundation for sustainable development policy and practice.

What it reported doing in 2024

An ra science meeting for all members was organized and held may 6-10, 2024 in bergen, norway with 30 participants. The focus of the meeting was to present preliminary findings of the working-group projects and to make progress on the synthesis and toolkit. A visiting scholar visit to southern Illinois university edwardsville was organized for june 29- july 12, 2024 as part of the project "strengthening the theoretical basis of resilience in practice, and "artificial intelligence in resilience assessments and social-ecological systems" to support working groups led by resilience alliance young scholars. A final report for the project "strengthening the theoretical basis of resilience in practice" was submitted to the vkrf v. Kann rasmussen foundation on july 28, 2024. All working groups presented their work at an international conference in montreal august 2024 (pecs-3: pathways to sustainability). Final working group outputs include: working group #1 on modelling and measuring resilience involved a systematic review of quantitative resilience metrics and their application in simulation models. First paper submitted to ecology and society: "social-ecological resilience metrics need to better incorporate diversity and agency".working group #2 reviewed resilience assessment guides and drafted a manuscript "assessing assessments: how resilience assessment tools map onto the 7 principles of resilience".working group #3 developed a community of practice for early career researchers that held monthly online meetings and launched a podcast with 4 pilot episodes and 15 scheduled.working group #4 conducted a systematic review of artificial intelligence (ai) in resilience studies and has one manuscript in preparation "artificial intelligence in resilience: a comprehensive multi-disciplinary study with a focus on social-ecological systems".working group #5 developed a case study to test a pathway diversity approach to resilience assessment and planning for large disasters impacting food systems. Paper in preparation "pathway diversity of evolved product spaces: a novel approach to modeling resilience economic development trajectories".a synthesis team developed a first draft online decision support tool to assist researchers in identifying the most appropriate approach to measuring/assessing resilience.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 71% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 83.1%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.7%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.4%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.8% of revenue deployed · 83.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $359K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.