The Student Conservation Association

Legal name: The Student Conservation Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
910880684
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington, VA, US
Phone
(703) 524-2441
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$48,435,405
Expenses
$50,040,186
Assets
$23,423,520
Liabilities
$7,209,166

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LIDIA SOTO-HARMON (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LIDIA SOTO-HARMON (PRESIDENT & CEO): $419,214 total reported compensation
  • USHA CHAUDHARY (COO): $243,015 total reported compensation
  • BARBARA MCINTOSH (CHIEF COUNSEL SVP (UNTIL 3/15/25)): $239,727 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Student Conservation Association is the largest provider of hands-on environmental conservation programs for youth and young adults.

What it reported doing in 2024

Conservation corps: teams of young adults (primarily 18-25 years of age) led by sca staff spend 3-10 months addressing needs on federal and state public lands including habitat restoration, trail maintenance, invasive species eradication, wildfire mitigation, and more. Participant s gain important professional skills and experience.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 95
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.3%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 71.5%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 73.3% of revenue deployed · 71.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $35.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $419K · 28 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.3M reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.