The Sand County Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
396089450
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6086634605
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,164,829
Expenses
$4,900,884
Assets
$13,721,514
Liabilities
$1,177,593

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEVIN MCALEESE (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • HEIDI PETERSON (VICE PRESIDENT - AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & CONSERVAT)
  • LANCE IRVING (VICE PRESIDENT - LEOPOLD CONSERVATION AWARD)
  • CHRISTINA SCHELLPFEFFER (VICE PRESIDENT - EXTERNAL RELATIONS)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEVIN MCALEESE (PRESIDENT & CEO): $227,663 total reported compensation
  • HEIDI PETERSON (VICE PRESIDENT - AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & CONSERVAT): $176,995 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINA SCHELLPFEFFER (VICE PRESIDENT - EXTERNAL RELATIONS): $157,502 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Sand county foundation's mission is to inspire and empower a growing number of land owners and managers to ethically care for the land to sustain water resources, build healthy soil, enhance wildlife habitat, and support outdoor recreation.

What it reported doing in 2025

Agricultural conservation - the foundation's agricultural conservation program demonstrates land management practices that protect soil and water, utilize them more efficiently, and maximize the environmental benefits and productive capacity of agricultural systems. We strive to ensure that conservation measures enhance the long-term profitability and resilience of farms and ranches.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.8; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.8%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 81.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $228K · 21 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.