West Virginia Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550740909
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charleston, WV, US
Phone
(304) 346-7788
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,072,841
Expenses
$1,231,739
Assets
$21,539,019
Liabilities
$56,861

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDY ALTMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • JOY OAKES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRENT BAILEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRENT BAILEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $126,072 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 West Virginia Land Trust is a statewide nonprofit dedicated to protecting West Virginia's natural lands, scenic areas, water quality, and recreational access forever.

What it reported doing in 2024

Stewardship (property and easement maintenance): upon securing a conservation easement, the wvlt initiates an annual monitoring program to ensure that the covenants in the easement are adhered to and that the conservation values that have been recognized are protected in perpetuity. If there are violations of the easement, the wvlt will work with the owner to develop an action plan to mitigate any damages and if necessary, will legally defend the easement in court. When the land trust acquires property in fee, it determines the appropriate uses(s) for the land and elaborates a management plan that serves those uses. Those uses are developed with maximum public benefit in mind. On a preserve that is to be available to the public, those uses may include trail networks, streamside protection, or interactive services for educational purposes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.7%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 72.5%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 59.9%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.49; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 37.7% of revenue deployed · 72.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $893K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.