Land Empowerment Animals People Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203652744
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Weed, CA, USA
Phone
9255860839
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$615,699
Expenses
$573,750
Assets
$566,879
Liabilities
$2,035

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Cynthia Ong (Executive Director)
  • Mark Stafford (Admin CEO)
  • Caroline Gabel (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Cynthia Ong (Executive Director): $82,680 total reported compensation
  • Mark Stafford (Admin CEO): $4,800 total reported compensation
  • Kenneth Wilson (Trustee Secretary): $4,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Facilitate committed and open partnerships and projects that enable habitats, species and cultures to thrive, and to provide sustainable economic activities that place equal value on income security, quality of life and the health of our shared environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

We helped fund five eco-cultural resilience programs by our Malaysian partner Forever Sabah Berhad (FS, foreversabah.org) that continue a transition towards a diversified, equitable, circular economy. First, we funded their Forever Sabah: Into a Relational Future program focusing on a broad range of robust and diversified micro-economic growth strategies moving forward. Secondly, in order of funding, we granted specifically to FSs Human Elephant Harmony that continues to grow positive relationships between humans and their wild elephant neighbors. Third, we target funded FSs palm oil transition to diversified agroforestry to meet 2025 government certification goals. Fourth, we supported Oregon State University student on-site education using Forever Sabah Institutes iterative success training models. Fifth, we gave legs to a new Methane Awareness effort in Malaysia with additional funding. Finally, our own program salary and Zoom contributions capped our expenses

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 83% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 43
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.2%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 93.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $69.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.6%; rating input score 92; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.8%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.99; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.9%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.2% of revenue deployed · 93.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $537K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $83K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.