Weconservepa

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232789029
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Harrisburg, PA, USA
Phone
7172308560
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,607,278
Expenses
$1,316,008
Assets
$3,128,974
Liabilities
$350,756

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREW M LOZA (EXECUTIVE DI): $248,452 total reported compensation
  • JUSTIN HOLLINGER (LEGAL DIRECT): $127,334 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Weconservepa helps people protect, wisely use, and enjoy what nature offers. We advocate for pro-conservation, life sustaining government policy. We assist individuals and organizations in conserving natural areas, farms, forests, parks, urban gardens, and other green spaces that safeguard our drinking water, prevent flooding, protect wildlife, provide recreational and economic opportunities, and preserve scenic beauty. We foster public understanding of conservation, promote environmentally sustainable practices, and connect people to the outdoors.

What it reported doing in 2025

Conservation advocacy -- advocate for pro-conservation, life-sustaining government policy in the legislative and executive branches of government. Advise the courts in upholding conservation-friendly policies consistent with our constitutional environmental rights. Promote continued and increased state, federal, and local government investments in conservation-related projects and encourage good stewardship of natural resources already conserved in whole or in part by the public and private sectors. Foster productive, ethical, and equitable land trust movement and individual organization policies and practices.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 94.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $83.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 72.6%; rating input score 73; 37th 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; 64th 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: 18.1%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.38; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.8% of revenue deployed · 94.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $248K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 18 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.