Valley of the Moon Natural History Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942412859
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Glen Ellen, CA, USA
Phone
7079385216
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,645,270
Expenses
$1,569,020
Assets
$2,064,743
Liabilities
$169,557

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MALCOLM WALTER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATT LEFFERT (EXECUTIVE DI): $206,396 total reported compensation
  • LAURA ELMORE (DEVELOPMENT): $108,913 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We preserve the historic and natural beauty of the park while creating innovative opportunities for recreation, education and enjoyment. We collaborate with our community and volunteers to ensure a sustainable park that would make jack london proud.

What it reported doing in 2024

Valley of the moon natural history association (vmnha) was established in 1977 to support the interpretive needs of three sonoma county parks: annadel state park, jack london state historic park (jlshp) and sugarloaf ridge state historic park. Vmnha has played a key role in providing monetary support for training, coordination and recognition of volunteers who carry out the essential functions of these parks. Vmnha has also overseen the development of cultural and recreational programs, educational exhibits, signage and historical displays at jlshp. Among the organization's accomplishments is the award winning restoration of the cottage that jack london lived in after acquiring beauty ranch. In may 2012, vmnha became the first non-profit to enter into an operating agreement with the state of California to prevent jlshp from closure. Vmnha dba jack london park partners (jlpp) oversees management of the park. Currently over 250 volunteers, and a staff of 12 carry out essential operations and maintenance responsibilities at jlshp. Jlpp receives no funds from state parks to subsidize the management and operation of the park and depends entirely on private donations to execute programming, maintain the grounds and administer operations. Since may 1, 2012 vmnha has been the operator of jack london state historic park, under contract with the California state parks. Of the over 90,000 visitors to jack london state park annually, nearly 20% are foreign visitors and an additional 40% travel more than 50 miles to experience the 1,400 acre beautiful ranch where jack london lived, wrote, farmed and died. Stewardship of this national historic landmark property requires the staff of 12 and over 250 volunteers to carry out the essential operations and maintenance of the park. Raising funds for services, programs, restoration and outreach is the sole responsibility of vmnha. Programs such as summer theatre, school and docent tours, piano concerts, outdoor recreation programs, interpretive education and cultural programs are all developed and overseen by the vmnha. In addition, there is a reciprocal arrangement between the operator and sugarloaf ridge state to create an exchange of labor between the two parks to maximize efficiencies. Vmnha has a contract with the park operator of sugarloaf ridge state park to provide coordination of volunteer services. Maps, guides, books and interpretive publications are designed and printed by vmnha for use in jack london state historical park. Exhibits and outdoor signage enhance the vistors expierence and are a continuing project of vmnha.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.2%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 69.8%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.6%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.32; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.1%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.2% of revenue deployed · 69.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $206K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.