John M Nelson Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680066225
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Springville, CA, USA
Phone
5593591268
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,952
Expenses
$25,733
Assets
$866,216
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Frank Schlitz (President & CEO)

People named in this filing

  • Brian Cahill (Director)
  • Jerome Libecki (Director)
  • Melissa Eurton (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Maintain Protected Land

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.9%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 45.2%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 33.66; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.9% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.9% of revenue deployed · 81.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $21K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.