Wallkill Valley Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222867070
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Paltz, NY, USA
Phone
8452552761
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$396,779
Expenses
$447,338
Assets
$966,410
Liabilities
$72,621

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOE PIRROTTA (PRESIDENT)
  • MARTY IRWIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTINE DEBOER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINE DEBOER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $90,267 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote the preservation, protection, and balanced use of the wallkill valley through acquisition, holding, and management of fee simple title conservation easements.

What it reported doing in 2024

Acquire preservation agreements for both lands and trails with landowners through purchase or donation to permanently protect the land from future development for the benefit of present and future generations. Preserve way of life by protecting valuable assets that make ulster county a great place to live, work and visit. Stewardship includes conservation easements and owned lands for open space recreation by purchase, acquisition or donation. Educate the public and advocate for the need to protect and conserve land, assist landowners in understanding habitat protection and land management. Provide interpretive programming on the cultural, biological, historical, and wildlife behaviors and habitats.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.5%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 87.2%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.16; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.2%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.5% of revenue deployed · 87.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $390K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.