National Association of Conservation Districts
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 741162773
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2025476223
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $19,293,176
- Expenses
- $19,169,281
- Assets
- $4,504,069
- Liabilities
- $1,658,417
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
122 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GARY BLAIR (PRESIDENT)
- MARK MASTERS (FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT)
- RYAN BRITT (SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT)
- JEREMY PETERS (CEO/ALTERNATE BOARD MEMBER)
- KIMBERLY LAFLEUR (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JEREMY PETERS (CEO/ALTERNATE BOARD MEMBER): $322,061 total reported compensation
- JENNIFER NELLIGAN (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $192,312 total reported compensation
- KARLA MALDONADO-MITCHELL (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $188,067 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See schedule othe goals of the organization are to: 1) represent districts as their national voice on conservation issues; 2) provide useful information to conservation districts and their state associations; 3) build partnerships with federal and state agencies and other organizations in order to carry out district priorities and programs; 4) analyze programs and policy issues that have an impact on local districts; 5) offer needed and cost-effective services to districts.
What it reported doing in 2024
Special projects - included pursuing research, developing and producing publications that address natural resource conservation and related issues, assisting state associations in securing financial and technical assistance in implementing landscape scale projects that address natural resource concerns.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 29
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 98.5%; rating input score 98
- Program expense ratio: 99%; rating input score 99
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 97.6%; rating input score 98; 28th 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: 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.6%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 98.5% of revenue deployed · 99% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 66 of 66 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $19M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $322K · 122 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 246 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 240 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.