River Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930969979
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boulder, CO, USA
Phone
3037362724
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,131,058
Expenses
$6,393,167
Assets
$3,514,246
Liabilities
$793,995

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RAJAN SHUKLA (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • APRIL INGLE (INTERIM PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RAJAN SHUKLA (PRESIDENT/CEO): $200,460 total reported compensation
  • LISA RUNKEL (EMPLOYEE): $115,571 total reported compensation
  • AMY BOAL (EMPLOYEE): $106,230 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

River network grows and strengthens a transformational national network of water, justice and river advocates.

What it reported doing in 2024

Delivery of tools, training, mentoring and resources to water protectors and business leaders across the country, ensuring expanded access to healthy rivers and clean water for all. Work includes engagement of over 2,500 groups working at the local level across the country, delivery of our annual conerence (river rally), engagement through cohorts and coalitions working on key issues fundamental to addressing todays water crisis, support for clean-ups and community engagement events, mentoring to strengthen leaders and organizations, and publications and dissemination of tools, reports and stories to accelerate knowledge transfer

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 67% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.5%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st 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: 96.5%; rating input score 97; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.3%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.5% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $200K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 54 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 49 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.