Essex County Greenbelt Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042664297
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Essex, MA, USA
Phone
9787687241
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,983,643
Expenses
$4,976,459
Assets
$72,410,384
Liabilities
$1,002,548

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATHERINE BOWDITCH (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTOPHER LAPOINTE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTOPHER LAPOINTE (PRESIDENT): $155,740 total reported compensation
  • KATHERINE BOWDITCH (PRESIDENT): $133,142 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Land conservation and conservation education.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, greenbelt completed 13 conservation projects that permanently protected 447 acres. We managed the more than 400 greenbelt fee-owned properties; completed dozens of property improvement projects, and formally monitored 137 conservation easements on 5,473 acres. We held 90 in-person and virtual events, including a family nature series, workshops, community events, and a trail run, with a combined participation of over 2,500 people. 185 volunteers assisted us, and we welcomed 240 new members and 2,260 returning member households.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% 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 - A large share of total spending goes to programs and 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: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.8%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 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: Fail
    • 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: 44.6%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.55; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.8% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 22 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.