The Rockbridge Area Conservation Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510228197
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Lexington, VA, USA
Phone
5404622330
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$228,821
Expenses
$157,884
Assets
$535,153
Liabilities
$10,609

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BOB BIERSACK (PRESIDENT)
  • SHANNON SPENCER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JAMIE GOODIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • BARBARA WALSH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BARBARA WALSH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $39,500 total reported compensation
  • JAMIE GOODIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $5,603 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the rockbridge area conservation council (rockbridge conservation or rc) is to promote and enhance the protection, sustainable use, and stewardship of our community's natural and cultural resources.

What it reported doing in 2024

Organized and supported community conservation action initiatives: collaborated with habitat for humanity on a demonstration project to install solar panels on a habitat home and explored options for expanding the program; participated in lexington's advisory group on the city bike and pedestrian plan; monitored benthic water quality indicators, chemical indicators and bacteria, and salt in area streams; collaborated with 3north and kendal on landscape plans and trails for kendal and sunnyside preserve, including the brushy blue trail system; partnered with the u.s. Forest service to designate the 1st old growth network-recognized old growth forest in rockbridge, provided parking area design, and hosted a public opening ceremony; continued implementation of the vof go grant to develop the uncas trail; organized volunteers to assist with removing non-native invasive plant species from the sunnyside preserve; collaborated with deq and jmu to document water quality impacts of lake merriweather on the little calfpasture river; served on the allegheny blue ridge alliance advisory committee to develop conservation hub gis database resources for key regional environmental issues including potential water quality impacts from the proposed the rocky forge wind power plant and pfas contamination from land application of biosolids; organized the 28th annual community clean-up and presented the litter cup for the most trash collected; conducted research and produced a white paper for local governments on the va plastic bag fee program; started a pilot neighborhood composting program and expanded it to two collection sites; polled restaurant owners and evaluated options for reusable take-out food containers; supported the earth magic glass recycling start-up and extension of service to lexington; organized additional waste reduction, reuse, and recycling options at the community household hazardous waste collection day; volunteered to assist the james river association with e. Coli monitoring at ben salem wayside on the maury river during swimming season; installed pet waste disposal stations on woods creek rrail with grant funding from ujrc&d; participated in the successful effort to extend state scenic river designation to the lower half of the maury river; and designed a field study of pfas in rockbridge county in partnership with Virginia tech.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. 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: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th 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: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 31%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.39; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.6%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 19 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $120K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.