Jefferson Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911465078
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Port Townsend, WA, USA
Phone
3603799501
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,049,525
Expenses
$2,573,411
Assets
$21,499,738
Liabilities
$865,188

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICK YORK (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TIM LAWSON (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JANE GUILTINAN (PRESIDENT)
  • RICHARD TUCKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • RICHARD TUCKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $130,395 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Helping the community preserve open space, working lands, and habitat forever in jefferson county.

What it reported doing in 2024

Jefferson land trust (jlt) preserves open space, working lands and habitat in perpetuity. This overarching mission is fulfilled through the acquisition of land and conservation easements, as well as collaborative efforts with other organizations. All of our land acquisitions come with the obligation and promise to steward the land forever. Stewardship is comprised of persistent monitoring and safekeeping of all jlt properties. Additionally, in the event that an unlawful disturbance is discovered on a piece of land, stewardship documentation allows us to take legal action to preserve the conservation values. Education and outreach programs allow jlt to spread its message throughout the community, and offer opportunities for the public to participate in conservation efforts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% 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

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 74.8%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: 15.6%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.35; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65% of revenue deployed · 74.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $130K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.