Robert E Ahlf Preserve Fund NFP

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
881593841
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Sanctuary, Refuge

Reported finances

Revenue
$274,610
Expenses
$50,456
Assets
$7,830,615
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Brinkman (President)
  • Jerry Tienstra (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • John Brinkman (President)
  • Greg Busler (Secretary)
  • Dave Smith (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Supporting organization of the homewood izaak walton preserve, inc

What it reported doing in 2024

The Robert E. Ahlf Preserve Fund NFP (NFP) is established as a supporting organization of the Homewood Izaak Walton Preserve, Inc. (The Preserve) with the following purposes, all of which are conducted by the Board of Directors of NFP at the location of the Preserve: (percentage of time devoted to the activity is indicated in parentheses after each item)A.To further the purposes and core objectives of the Preserve as established by its Constitution & By-Laws, as amended from time to time, and spending policy adopted by the Preserve, as amended from time to time, (25 percent)B.For preservation of the lands and waters owned and/or managed by the Preserve, (20 percent)C.To support capital projects that enhance the physical and environmental condition of the Preserve, (25 percent)D.To support expansion of the Preserve with the reclamation of additional land through purchase or long-term management agreements, (20 percent) and, E.For administrative expenses directly related to management of the Fund, including the retention of professional advisors (10 percent).

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 93
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 25.7%; rating input score 26
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 81.6%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 155.2; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -20.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -78.3% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 25.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $50K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 26/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.