Save the Scenic Santa Ritas

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860844725
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Tucson, AZ, US
Phone
520 261-5014
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Pollution Abatement and Control Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$280,990
Expenses
$278,358
Assets
$508,965
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Dougherty (Executive Director)
  • Robert Peters (Executive Director)
  • Thomas Nelson (Board President)
  • Ron Steffens (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • John Dougherty (Executive Director): $44,661 total reported compensation
  • Robert Peters (Executive Director): $44,231 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 prevent Toronto-based Hudbay Minerals Inc. from constructing the Copper World mining complex in the Santa Rita Mountains 30 miles south of Tucson.

What it reported doing in 2025

Over the course of 2025, we hosted five community events where 700 citizens were able to learn more about Copper World, connect with one another, and take action to protect the mountains from open-pit mining. We continued litigating two lawsuits challenging Copper Worlds plans to pollute our air and industrialize the 52,000 acre Santa Rita Experimental Range, the nations oldest and largest open-space research center. We worked closely with the Pima County Board of Supervisors as it passed its fourth resolution since 2007 opposing open-pit mining in the Santa Rita Mountains.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.7%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 79.2%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.9%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.83; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 78.7% of revenue deployed · 79.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $220K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.