Red-tail Land Conservancy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341889427
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Muncie, IN, USA
Phone
7652882587
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$890,229
Expenses
$385,913
Assets
$5,245,361
Liabilities
$7,253

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN TAYLOR (PRESIDENT)
  • MARSHA GRATNER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JULIE BORGMANN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIE BORGMANN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $77,795 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Red-tail land conservancy preserves, protects, and restores natural areas and farm land in east central Indiana while increasing awareness of our natural heritage.

What it reported doing in 2024

Red-tail land conservancy protects 43 properties, totaling 2,921 acres, of natural areas in six counties in east central Indiana: Delaware, henry, madison, randolph, tipton, and wayne counties. This includes conservation easements and nature preserves, 11 of which are open to the public. In pursuit of its mission, red-tail land conservancy protects vulnerable forests, prairie, wetlands, and waterways from urban encroachment, conversion to working lands, and the effects of climate change. Once protected by red-tail, these wildlife habitats undergo restoration and stewardship to improve or maintain ecological health. This includes eradicating invasive weeds, planting beneficial trees, and reintroducing rare and endangered species. Red-tail land conservancy offers opportunities for community engagement in its mission by holding volunteer events to assist with land stewardship. Red-tail also offers options to help landowners achieve their conservation vision. These free consultations are conversations that cover options such as a conservation easement or land donation to red-tail. They additionally include resources and information from governmental and other nonprofit conservation organizations. Red-tail protected properties also serve as sites for scholarly research. Partnering with students, faculty, and conservation professionals, our nature preserves are used for studies in biodiversity, ecological restoration, land management, and other biological interests. We partner and support other conservation organizations who share our mission to restore and preserve natural areas in east central Indiana, including, local cisma's, swcd, and watershed projects.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.4%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 68.9%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

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: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 56.7%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.59; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.4% of revenue deployed · 68.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $266K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.