Sageland Collaborative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830468561
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, US
Phone
(801) 328-3550
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,013,961
Expenses
$1,129,578
Assets
$2,815,566
Liabilities
$31,142

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Janice Gardner (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Janice Gardner (Executive Director): $110,281 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Sageland Collaborative provides science-based strategies for wildlife and land conservation.

What it reported doing in 2025

Promoting Habitat Connectivity: To sustain and restore corridors of habitat that allow all the region's wildlife species the space to complete their life-cycles and maintain healthy populations. Protecting Species in Conservation Need: To increase the population trends of all species in conservation need that contribute to ecosystem diversity and indirectly conserve other wildlife species.Restoring Vital Habitat: To increase declining wildlife populations by improving habitat that are considered high value for wildlife species in the region.

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 95% 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

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.9%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 82.5%; rating input score 83; 39th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -11.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.49; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 91.9% of revenue deployed · 82% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $927K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.