RiverLink Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581867958
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Asheville, NC, USA
Phone
8282528474
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,647,065
Expenses
$1,167,977
Assets
$8,941,347
Liabilities
$81,917

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lisa Raleigh (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lisa Raleigh (Executive Director): $87,443 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

RiverLink promotes the environmental and economic vitality of the French Broad River and its watershed for all.

What it reported doing in 2024

Land Conservation: In 2024, our region was significantly impacted by Hurricane Helene. Despite the devastation from the storm, our Land Program completed the annual monitoring of our 24 conservation easements and our 9 fee-simple properties, assessing damage and changes post-Helene. All of our protected properties fared very well in the storm aside from one property we own along the Swannanoa River in East Asheville which experienced significant loss of vegetation. The three fee-simple properties we manage as public parks (or future public parks) handled the flooding extremely well and sustained little to no damage. Karen Cragnolin Park was repaired and back online in a matter of weeks following the storm, future Gateway Park was successfully cleared of debris, and Pearson Park sustained no damage. In addition, we have continued to improve our volunteer program by refining our Public Volunteer Events and creating Sponsored Volunteer Events. These sponsored events cater to larger groups looking for meaningful, team-building activities that give back to the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.6%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 72.4%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 29.1%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.66; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.5%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.6% of revenue deployed · 72.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $846K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $87K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 58/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.