Earth Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232683110
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Ashley, PA, US
Phone
570.823.3445
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,070,266
Expenses
$5,586,581
Assets
$38,800,113
Liabilities
$777,061

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TERENCE J OSTROWSKI (PRESIDENT/CE)

Highest reported compensation

  • TERENCE J OSTROWSKI (PRESIDENT/CE): $209,700 total reported compensation
  • GEOFFREY D SHAW (EXEC. ADMINI): $187,467 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To restore and revitalize the land, water, and communities of northeastern Pennsylvania's anthracite coal region through reclamation, conservation, and sustainable redevelopment.

What it reported doing in 2025

Earth conservancy operates a regional compost facility in newport twp. The compost facility accepts yard waste from residents, municipalities and businesses to be recycled and converted into compost material. This process allows biodegradable waste to be recycled without filling regional landfills. Earth conservancy does not charge residents or local municipalities to deposit yard waste. Residents, municipalities and other not for profits can utilize compost material free of charge.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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.

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 some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.2%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 76.9%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 16th 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: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.5%; rating input score 87; 26th 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: 44.5%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.95; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 43.2% of revenue deployed · 76.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $210K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $2.8M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.
  • 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 43/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.