D&r Greenway Land Trust Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223035836
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Princeton, NJ, USA
Phone
6099244646
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,192,362
Expenses
$1,921,989
Assets
$96,263,867
Liabilities
$1,281,824

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDA J MEAD (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDA J MEAD (PRESIDENT & CEO): $220,677 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

D&r greenway land trust's mission is to preserve and care for land, and to inspire a conservation ethic, now and forever.

What it reported doing in 2024

Permanent protection of land is the heart of d&r greenway's mission. This work is guided by a strategic plan and evaluation of lands to ensure they meet key criteria including, among others: protection of wildlife and bird habitat, migratory corridors, biodiversity, agricultural soils and scenic views; contribution to water quality along a waterway or in a key aquifer; opportunity to provide for public accessibility and connecting trails; and community conservation. The majority of protected lands and conservation and agricultural easements are purchased in partnership with government partners, other conservation nonprofits and with private support. D&r greenway has established a revolving land fund with private contributions toward this purpose. Through stewardship and protection of these lands, d&r greenway provides a public benefit including a healthy environment, local foods, recreational opportunities and quality of life for area residents and visitors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 97
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 51.4%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 25th 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: 54.2%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 50.09; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.5%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41% of revenue deployed · 51.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $989K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $221K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.