Siskiyou Land Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
721568115
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Arcata, CA, USA
Phone
7074984900
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$341,379
Expenses
$55,740
Assets
$1,969,447
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Thomas G King (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Thomas G King (President): $30,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Siskiyou Land Conservancy is a state and federally approved non-profit organization that assists landowners who want to protect the natural values of their land, either through purchase or establishment of conservation easements.

What it reported doing in 2025

Siskiyou Land Conservancy is a small non-profit organization in Northern California dedicated to protecting biological diversity and promoting sustainable living. Our work covers five counties(Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Trinity and Siskiyou) containing key habitat for many endangered species.Siskiyou Land Conservancy is dedicated to protecting fish habitat throughout Northern California, particularly on the Klamath, Smith and Mad Rivers. In addition, the Sustainable Communities Program assists North Coast residents who want information and resources for living lighter on the planet.The projects of the organization are many. Siskiyou Land Conservancy currently owns several land parcels and four conservation easements. The McCoy Creek/Eel River property protects 160 acres and nearly one mile of critical spawning habitat for Endangered Coho salmon. Another parcel, 80 acres on the Smith River, protects rare plant habitat. Newly acquired in 2024 (283 acres) and 2025 (70 acres) are parcels along the Mad River. Current work on these new parcels include fixing roads, forest restoration and possible beaver species reintroduction.The organization also hold four conservation easements. One of the easements protects 148 acres on the South Fork Smith River, another protects 163 acres in western Mendocino County, and the third protects 75 acres in Southern Humboldt County. The newest easement is located on the Mad River and protects forest habitat.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 13.1%; rating input score 13
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 83.7%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 35.33; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 53.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 13.1% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $45K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $30K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 13/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.