Aquidneck Island Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223073770
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Middletown, RI, USA
Phone
4018492799
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,405,320
Expenses
$2,370,867
Assets
$26,146,196
Liabilities
$1,582,727

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TERENCE SULLIVAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TERENCE SULLIVAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $251,526 total reported compensation
  • EDWARD MAGRO (DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR): $183,385 total reported compensation
  • MARTHA CURLEY (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $116,762 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To preserve and steward aquidneck island's open spaces for the lasting benefit of the community while connecting people with the land that defines the island's natural character.

What it reported doing in 2024

One property consisting of 13.01 acres was permanently protected on aquidneck island in the year ended september 30, 2025. Preserved parcels are strategically important based on clear conservation criteria. As of september 30, 2025, the land trust has preserved and protected 2,854.04 acres of land to date. Through our aquidneck resilience team, we are partnering with the three island municipalities, naval station newport, and the broader community to prepare for and respond to increasing climate change related challenges, such as, stormwater pollution, flooding and coastal erosion.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 64.9%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.03; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70% of revenue deployed · 64.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $252K · 21 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $502K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.