Prickly Pear Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810506868
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Helena, MT, USA
Phone
4064420490
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,891,943
Expenses
$6,360,933
Assets
$15,370,271
Liabilities
$2,758,480

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAM BUCY (PRESIDENT)
  • MARY HOLLOW (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY HOLLOW (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $142,775 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 inspire connections to the landscapes, water, wildlife, recreation and agricultural heritage of west-central Montana through conservation, now and for future generations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Conservation land and easement acquisition, ecological restoration, & monitoring: pplt acquires conservation easements or fee land to permanently protect conservation and/or recreational values of specific land parcels. In, 2024, pplt completed one fee title acquisition of conservation land and two conservation easements on private land totaling 7,739-acres in lewis and clark, broadwater and meagher counties. Pplt also orchestrates ecological restoration efforts on key public and private lands in conjunction with private landowners, public land management agencies and other conservation groups. In 2024, pplt continued restoration activities on approximately 700 acres of land in lewis and clark county.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 93.2%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.5%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.42; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.4% of revenue deployed · 93.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $143K · 14 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $125K reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.