Bear-paw Regional Greenways

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043340659
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Northwood, NH, USA
Phone
6034639400
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$350,074
Expenses
$273,727
Assets
$4,786,977
Liabilities
$125,588

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Krystal Balanoff (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Krystal Balanoff (Executive Director): $71,790 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Bear-paw regional greenways is a land trust with a mission to permanently conserve a network of lands that protect the water, wildlife habitat, forests and farmland of our region.

What it reported doing in 2024

OUTREACH AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM Published newsletters and distributed them to members, landowners, local officials and area residents. Held an Annual Meeting in February for members, landowners, local officials and area residents. Sponsored, attended or provided conservation information at community events. Sent out letters describing our land conservation efforts and the conservation issues to members, area residents and local landowners. Hosted workshops and fieldtrips on land conservation planning, land conservation issues and other natural resource topics for members, landowners, local officials and area residents. Maintained our website with current information on the organization and land protection efforts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.9%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.8%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.49; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.2%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.9% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $226K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 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 32/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.