Big Sur Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942473415
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Monterey, CA, USA
Phone
8316255523
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,754,257
Expenses
$5,794,383
Assets
$92,412,433
Liabilities
$5,119,452

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jeannette Tuitele-Lewis (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jeannette Tuitele-Lewis (CEO): $282,812 total reported compensation
  • Peter Eigen (CFO/COO): $161,598 total reported compensation
  • Rachel Saunders (Dir. Conservation): $155,517 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 Big Sur Land Trust is to inspire love of the land and conservation of our treasured landscapes.

What it reported doing in 2024

Stewardship - Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) expends funds and initiates community partnerships to be effective stewards of both the BSLT's protected acreage as well as other important public and private lands. BSLT provides a high standard of stewardship for our ecological, cultural and scenic features that define the character of our properties and contribute to our natural and cultural heritage. Stewardship includes care of the facilities and amenities that ensure a high quality visitor experience; the standard of care balances ecological health and human use of the land. Approximately 100,000 people benefited.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 68% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.3%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.4%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 67.4%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.95; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.3% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $4.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $283K · 23 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $20.7M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.