Bluegrass Land Conservancy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611293032
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lexington, KY, USA
Phone
8592554552
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,616,412
Expenses
$1,571,591
Assets
$11,508,476
Liabilities
$59,762

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JESSIE HANCOCK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ASHLEY GREATHOUSE (COUNSEL & DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION): $185,552 total reported compensation
  • JESSIE HANCOCK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $160,052 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Founded in 1995, bluegrass land conservancy is a community-supported, nonprofit, nationally accredited land trust working to protect land in the bluegrass region of Kentucky through permanent conservation easements. We do this through education and by promoting the preservation of land for agriculture, historic and cultural heritage, wildlife habitat, natural resources, water quality, and scenic open space, to sustain a high quality of life.

What it reported doing in 2024

Founded in 1995, bluegrass land conservancy is a community-supported, nonprofit, nationally accredited land trust working to protect the bluegrass region of Kentucky through land conservation for future generations. It encourages the preservation of these lands for agricultural viability, natural habitat, rural heritage, and scenic open space. Thanks to increasing community support, the conservancy has assisted numerous farm families to permanently protect over 33,700 acres using conservation easements. An all-volunteer board of directors governs bluegrass land conservancy, while a small staff carries on our day-to-day operations such as assisting families with conserving their farms, providing guidance towards the long-term monitoring and stewardship of protected lands, upholding the long-term conservation vision for each property, and educating the community on the importance of land conservation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 22.1%; rating input score 22
  • Program expense ratio: 79%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $41.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: 76.2%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.32; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 22.1% of revenue deployed · 79% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $186K · 21 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.