Partnership for Conservation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813528121
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024695118
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,052,590
Expenses
$1,278,238
Assets
$254,837
Liabilities
$57,501

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT RAMSAY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ROBERT RAMSAY (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVEN KELLEY (SECRETARY)
  • GEORGE THORNTON (TREASURER)

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

To advocate for the interests and rights of land conservation donors and land trusts, while also promoting best practices for conservation easement donations. Recognizing that government alone cannot shoulder the financial burden of conservation, partnership for conservation is working to ensure the long-term availability and integrity of conservation easement donations. The organization's members include representatives from the entire conservation easement ecosystem, including individuals, private companies, land trusts, sportsmens organizations, and conservation groups.

What it reported doing in 2024

The partnership for conservation is an industry group that advocates for the interests and rights of land conservation donors and land trusts, as well as provides education and resources to ensure all of those involved in the private conservation of land and natural resources are adhering to a set of best practices and high-quality standards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: -21.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -22.5% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $728K reported
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.