Steep Rock Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
066069060
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington Depot, CT, USA
Phone
8608689131
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,555,125
Expenses
$1,289,944
Assets
$32,403,671
Liabilities
$109,761

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS M RICKART (PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN HAGENBUCH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN HAGENBUCH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $123,855 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Steep rock association is a nationally accredited land trust whose mission is to conserve ecologically and historically significant landscapes and riparian corridors in and around Washington, ct, and to enhance the community's connection to nature through outreach, education, and passive recreation.

What it reported doing in 2024

In pursuing its mission, steep rock association will:- use best management practices to maintain and manage the lands and improvements entrusted to it for passive recreation, the protection of native flora and fauna, and to support sustainable agrigulture.- strive to raise environmental consciousness by enhancing the community's knowledge and appreciation of nature and its awareness of steep rock's on-going contributions to the culture and history of the town of Washington.- pursue land-based non-commercial activities that benefit both steep rock and the community.

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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 22.8%; rating input score 23
  • Program expense ratio: 62.9%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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; 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: 71.7%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.12; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 22.8% of revenue deployed · 62.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $812K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $124K · 30 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 23/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.