The California Land Stewardship Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760772085
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Napa, CA, USA
Phone
7072531226
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,160,837
Expenses
$3,403,097
Assets
$1,529,845
Liabilities
$13,263

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEITH HORN (PRESIDENT)
  • LISE ASIMONT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTOPHER KELLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LAUREL MARCUS (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTOPHER KELLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $161,200 total reported compensation
  • LAUREL MARCUS (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $30,092 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To plan and implement environmental stewardship, restoration and enhancement programs and projects by using science and innovation to collaborate with farmers, governments, and communities to secure thriving, resilient and sustainable land and water systems.

What it reported doing in 2025

Coordinate with local, state and federal agencies to develop land management and environmental stewardship practices and programs that promote land and water resource conservation. This includes current year programs such as water quality improvement and water use efficiency, soil health, creek restoration, wildfire recovery and resiliency, invasive plant species removal, frost regulation and revegetation projects, well, creek and river monitoring programs and climate resiliency plans and programs. The three largest programs include sustainable water efficiency and enhancement programs, healthy soils programs and creating long term water supply resilience programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 82% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 26
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27.1%; rating input score 27
  • Program expense ratio: 33.1%; rating input score 33
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.2%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27.1% of revenue deployed · 33.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 7 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $880K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.