Rio Grande Return

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208434340
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Santa Fe, NM, USA
Phone
5054661767
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,035,196
Expenses
$1,794,223
Assets
$1,001,419
Liabilities
$10,918

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TODD LOPEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ALAN HAMILTON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TODD LOPEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $165,225 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Reclaim the rio grande watershed by direct reclamation activities and by providing support and fundraising for organizations that protect and preserve the watershed.

What it reported doing in 2024

Since january of 2020, rgr has planted 67,500 willow, 4,900 cottonwood and gooddings willow, 350 native riparian container plants and 8,850 saltgrass plugs; has cleared invasive trees from over 400 acres of wetlands; has constructed 7 exclosures to protect riparian plantings from cattle and elk browse on over 20 acres; has erected 3 miles of wildlife friendly fence; has constructed and maintained more than 300 in-stream structures on approximately 4 miles of streams; has established a native seed propagation farm; has formed a habitat conservation program focused on strategies for development of native wildlife habitats and refuges on formerly agricultural lands; and is actively administering a youth conservation corps program offering work experience in the field to young people from both native and non-native communities. Additionally, for the 4th year in a row, rgr is contracted with nmdg&f to provide professional services including legal advice and counseling regarding water rights on their properties throughout the state, and technical assistance regarding environmental restoration projects.

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 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 92.7%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: 11.8%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 30.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 39.1% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.8% of revenue deployed · 92.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.