Tortoise Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942838299
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Phone
7027397113
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$87,040
Expenses
$73,755
Assets
$121,540
Liabilities
$6,678

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Aerial West (Executive Director)
  • Sarah Mortimer (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Aerial West (Executive Director): $22,167 total reported compensation
  • Sarah Mortimer (Executive Director): $16,250 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Wild tortoise conservation initiatives: Tortoise Group partners with several federal, state, and local agencies with the sole intent of conserving our state's reptile. Through partnerships with United States Geological Survey (USGS), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Nevada Dept of Wildlife (NDOW), and Clark County Desert Conservation Program (DCP), and many more, Tortoise Group is able to augment existing studies and research projects as well as providing volunteer labor hours to assist in ongoing conservation projects in Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument (TUSK), Lake Mead National Rec Area, and uninhabited portions of the Mojave Desert within NV. Tortoise Group is at the forefront of providing volunteers for "citizen science" projects. Tortoise Group's Road Warriors project with Clark County Desert Conservation Program conducts road mortality surveys along roadways and fence inspections during less active season. Data collected from these surveys inform local, state

What it reported doing in 2025

Wild tortoise conservation initiatives: Tortoise Group partners with several federal, state, and local agencies with the sole intent of conserving our state's reptile. Through partnerships with United States Geological Survey (USGS), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Nevada Dept of Wildlife (NDOW), and Clark County Desert Conservation Program (DCP), and many more, TG is able to augment existing studies and research projects as well as providing volunteer labor hours to assist in ongoing conservation projects in Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument (TUSK), Lake Mead National Rec Area, and uninhabited portions of the Mojave Desert within NV. TG is at the forefront of providing volunteers for "citizen science" projects.

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.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.8%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 61.1%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 14th 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; 64th 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: 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.3%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.65; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 52.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.8% of revenue deployed · 61.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $45K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $22K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.