Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942936961
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
8014863161
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,559,455
Expenses
$5,095,187
Assets
$43,060,913
Liabilities
$285,489

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT BRADEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN BLOCH (LEGAL DIRECTOR/ATTORNEY): $179,192 total reported compensation
  • SCOTT BRADEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $159,245 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the organization is the preservation of the outstanding wilderness at the heart of the Colorado Plateau and Utahs West Desert, and the management of these lands in their natural state for the benefit of all Americans.

What it reported doing in 2025

- ENERGY Researched issues related to federal approvals for oil and gas development, public health and environmental protection. There was an emphasis on issues related to air and water quality, wildlife habitat and special emphasis areas. Tracked leasing of public lands for oil, gas and coal and determined where sensitive values may be compromised by this leasing. Summarized and provided this information to the public through paper and electronic medium. Submitted written comments, pursuant to Federal Register notices and draft environmental assessments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.1%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $54.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 9 of 9 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: 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: 62.4%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.45; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.1% of revenue deployed · 88.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $179K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $162K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • 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 45/100.