National Association of State Trust Lands
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 843716334
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 6082663788
- Rating
- 49
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Land Resources Conservation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $298,909
- Expenses
- $261,762
- Assets
- $734,262
- Liabilities
- $101,386
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SHAWN THOMAS (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- CHARLES DONOHUE (VICE PRESIDE)
- KRIS HESS (SECRETARY)
- SHAWN THOMAS (PRESIDENT)
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
The purpose of the association is to bring together public land managers responsible for overseeing the administration of hundreds of millions of acres of surface and subsurface lands and financial assets that are held in trust in 20 western states. These assets are managed for the benefit of helping states fund education. The association meets annualy to discuss best practices in trust land management for a wide array of uses that generate revenue for various beneficiaries. Information is distributed to all members to assist them in keeping abreast of the opporturnities and challenges that arise when managing large and diverse land holdings.
What it reported doing in 2024
These conferences are invaluable in meeting one of the primary goals of the association, educating and spreading awareness of what state trust lands are and how they are managed for their beneficiaries. By attracting new conference sponsors and affiliate members the nastl can expand the outreach and education component of its mission. Additionally, virtual meetings were held throughout the year to keep members engaged and informed on trust land matters as well as providing network opportunities to share best practices in land management.
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.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 31
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 6
- Sustainability: 61
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 35.6%; rating input score 36
- Program expense ratio: 34.3%; rating input score 34
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- 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: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12.4%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.81; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 35.6% of revenue deployed · 34.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $90K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 36/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 34/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.