Rocky Mountain Raptor Program

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900131614
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Fort Collins, CO, USA
Phone
9704847756
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recycling Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,264,727
Expenses
$1,366,714
Assets
$1,821,513
Liabilities
$804,512

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUDY SCHERPELZ (BOARD PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CARIN AVILA (Executive Dir.): $70,918 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide care and rehabilitation to injured birds of prey and to release them back into the wild. The organization also provides education and outreach programs to the public. The organization also contributes data and knowledge to research.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education and outreach programs to the public: rmrp enhances educational opportunities offered by Colorado and Wyoming school districts by integrating presentations into the curriculum of state standards in school classrooms. Rmrp participates in public outreach exhibits throughout the community, providing education and understanding of the importance of responsible stewardship and conservation of the environment and our wild inhabitants. These exhibits enable the public to experience birds of prey in a safe and up-close environment.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.9%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 58.1%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.1%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.9% of revenue deployed · 58.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $794K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.