Whatcom Land Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911246994
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bellingham, WA, USA
Phone
3607331010
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,218,745
Expenses
$1,670,346
Assets
$33,559,765
Liabilities
$1,107,965

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jenn Mackey (Interim Executive Director (Co-Ed Sep-Dec))
  • Alex Jeffers (Interim Executive Director (July-Aug, Co-ED Sep-Dec))
  • Rachel Vasak (Executive Director (Jan-Jun))
  • Hall Walker (President)
  • David Brown (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jenn Mackey (Interim Executive Director (Co-Ed Sep-Dec)): $102,907 total reported compensation
  • Alex Jeffers (Interim Executive Director (July-Aug, Co-ED Sep-Dec)): $96,207 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 mission of the Whatcom Land Trust is to preserve and protect wildlife habitat, scenic, agricultural and open space lands in Whatcom County for future generations by securing interests in land and promoting land stewardship.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community engagement in conservation action - We involve community members in Whatcom Land Trust's mission and work through events, volunteer programs, storytelling, digital engagement, and other outreach activities. We highlight the positive ecological impacts of conservation and stewardship projects with a focus on climate resilience and inspiring meaningful connections between people and land. Engagement tools establish clear pathways for community members to grow involvement with the organization through digital following, program (events) attendance, volunteering, and donating. In fiscal year 2024-25, Whatcom Land Trust organized the following community engagement activities: (1) Ambassador Program: Tabled at 35 community events; (2) Programming: Hosted 17 programs related to stewardship and environment education. Digital and Print Engagement: (1) Monthly E-Newsletters to 4,000 subscribers including updates on conservation milestones and ongoing restoration work; (2) Management of social media channels (2,800 Instagram followers, 2,900 Facebook followers); (3) Production of consistent printed communication with donors and volunteers supporting giving campaigns; (4) Targeted outreach and advertising campaigns supporting Stewardship and Conservation events. In-Person Events: Weekly stewardship work parties for volunteers in the Fall and Spring.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.4%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 73.2%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 8 of 8 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: 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: 24.7%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 20.09; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.4% of revenue deployed · 73.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $103K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 58/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.