Scenic Rivers Land Trust

Legal name: Scenic Rivers Land Trust Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521664141
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Annapolis, Maryland, US
Phone
(443) 714-7747
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$777,020
Expenses
$441,979
Assets
$2,661,891
Liabilities
$1,689

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAH KNEBEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JOAN RENNER (PRESIDENT)
  • EDMEE GEIS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH KNEBEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $92,177 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Scenic Rivers Land Trust conserves the special forests, farms, wetlands and natural areas that sustain Anne Arundel County.

What it reported doing in 2024

Scenic rivers land trust is dedicated to protecting forests, wetlands, farmlands and other open spaces in anne arundel county. We work with landowners and other partners to conserve natural and scenic areas through environmental education, land stewardship, and by holding and facilitating land protection agreements. We work within the herring bay, severn, south, patuxent, rhode, bodkin creek, patapsco and west river watersheds. To date, scenic rivers holds over 80 conservation easements across anne arundel county, totaling more than 3,829 acres.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.3%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 43.1%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.02; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.9%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 51.3% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $364K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.