Tar River Land Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311742900
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Louisburg, NC, USA
Phone
9194965902
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,344,736
Expenses
$1,428,234
Assets
$27,424,282
Liabilities
$73,467

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT COVINGTON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEREK HALBERG (EXECUTIVE DI): $150,449 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Tar river land conservancy preserves the natural and cultural resources of the tar river basin and surrounding areas by working in partnership with private landowners, public agencies and others to protect rural land, riparian corridors and ensure clean water.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tar river land conservancy achieved its land protection mission through the following actions: 4)received a donation of 35.86 acres in nash county, which land provides buffers to meadow branch. 5)opened picture creek nature preserve located in the town of stem, in granville county, which provides 2.6 miles of hiking trails. 6)built and maintained hiking trails on nature preserves in granville county through the work of a crew of dedicated local volunteers and other groups. Trlc offers for public use 14.8 miles of hiking trails at five nature preserves in granville county. 7)trlc staff and volunteers hosted three guided hikes, which were available to the public, on trlc protected properties in granville and person counties. 8)monitored conservation easements and fee properties held by trlc. 9)monitored 64 conservation easements held by the state of North Carolina. 10)worked to improve the water quality for fishing creek in halifax county by completing the close out of two animal waste lagoons, which are being converted them to fresh water ponds. The deq permit for the lagoons was rescinded. Also, a number of remaining buildings were demolished with the waste removed and the concrete crushed for reuse; farm roads were regraded and the crushed concrete was added to limit erosion; and a seven-acre meadow area was planted with pollinator species. 11)engagement with municipal and county governments regarding open space planning. 12)spent significant time and resources on land protection projects located in granville county, which lands will provide a buffer for camp butner and local resources. 13)spent significant time and resources on land protection projects located in person county, which lands will provide a buffer for flat river and local resources. 14)spent significant time and resources on land protection projects and outreach to landowners in halifax and nash counties, which lands provide buffers to fishing creek and little fishing creek.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 91.2%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $230.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.1%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.2; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.7% of revenue deployed · 91.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.