Open Space Institute

Legal name: Open Space Institute Land Trust Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133028060
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
New York, NY, US
Phone
212-290-8200
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$73,114,837
Expenses
$30,031,620
Assets
$448,306,863
Liabilities
$143,538,306

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

Leadership & pay

47 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTOPHER J ELLIMAN (PRESIDENT & CEO (OUTGOING 05/24))
  • DAVID KIERAN-KAUFMAN (VICE PRESIDENT AND ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL)
  • LARS KULLESEID (PRESIDENT & CEO (INCOMING 04/24))
  • MAY MAY CHENG (VICE PRESIDENT, CONTROLLER)
  • TALLY BLUMBERG (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TALLY BLUMBERG (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $403,844 total reported compensation
  • LARS KULLESEID (PRESIDENT & CEO (INCOMING 04/24)): $390,754 total reported compensation
  • NATHAN BERRY (CHIEF LAND, PROTECTION OFFICER): $383,415 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To protect land for people, for wildlife, forever.

What it reported doing in 2024

Capital strategies: guided by science, with a focus on protecting mature healthy forests, critical watersheds, and wildlife habitat, osilt works with foundations to design and administer re-grant programs, directing capital, and low-cost loans to accelerate the rate and effectiveness of conservation. Osilt also offers catalyst grants and technical assistance to partners and public agencies to incorporate conservation science into local planning and works directly with communities to incorporate nature-based solutions to mitigate the impact of extreme weather events. In 2024, osilt made 23 capital grants totaling $3,660,811, protecting 6,878 acres in seven states with a fair market value of $37,864,685. Further, osilt directly approved eight grants for conservation planning totaling $109,275.

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 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.8%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 80.1%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $39.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.9%; rating input score 96; 29th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 58.9%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.93; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 10 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 44.8% of revenue deployed · 80.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 27 of 27 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $24.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $404K · 47 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 43 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 43 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: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.