Chelsea Gardens Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061377136
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Norwich, CT, USA
Rating
31
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Beautification and Aesthetics

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,346
Expenses
$6,217
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HUGH SCHNIP (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LAURIE ENG (SECRETARY)
  • PETER WM MANERI JR (TREASURER)
  • KATHRYN LORD-RICHARD (VICE PRESIDE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To restore, protect ad beautify sections of mohegan park by constructing a multi-level public garden designed for enjoyment and education of all visitors.

What it reported doing in 2019

Donation given to non profit, thames valley marines

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -165%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -72.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -17.7% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 11 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2014 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.