Sacramento Valley Conservancy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680256214
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9167318798
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,478,845
- Expenses
- $1,263,285
- Assets
- $28,890,606
- Liabilities
- $9,427,445
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JENN PHILLIPS (CO PRESIDENT)
- ELISE FANDRICH (CO PRESIDENT)
- KELLY HOPKINS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KELLY HOPKINS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $89,332 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The primary purpose of the organization is the preservation, protection, aquisition, and/ or enhancement of land in its natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested and open space condition in the greater sacramento valley California area.
What it reported doing in 2024
In 2024, svc completed 11 new conservation projects, permanently protecting 1,292 acres of riparian, vernal pool, and grassland habitats. The successful closing of these projects resulted in the addition of eight new conservation easements and the assumption of long-term management responsibility for three properties. This work improves flood resiliency in the sacramento valley and south yuba county, while supporting local agriculture.the conservancy secured up to $2,650,000 through the California department of conservation's sustainable land conservation grant, with $150,000 in matching funds from sac sewer, to fund the purchase of a conservation easement on a 190-acre agricultural and riparian property in the vineyard area of sacramento county.the conservancy formally entered into long-term management agreements with the south sacramento conservancy agency (ssca) for two preserves, thereby establishing the conservancy as the primary organization for land management practices within the south sacramento habitat conservation plan area. Additionally, as a consultant, the conservancy will develop six long-term management plans for pre-dedicated preserves which the ssca holds in fee title.
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
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 liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 82
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 40.2%; rating input score 40
- Program expense ratio: 81.3%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $24.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th 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: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 63.7%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 22.87; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 40.2% of revenue deployed · 81.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.