Flint Park Conservancy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 134123155
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Larchmont, NY, USA
- Phone
- 2124180567
- Rating
- 91
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Land Resources Conservation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $83,518
- Expenses
- $1,584,915
- Assets
- $11,335
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Carolyn Dorfman (President)
- Laura Brancato (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Carolyn Dorfman (President)
- Alison Roffi (Secretary)
- Laura Brancato (Vice President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Flint Park Conservency's primary purpose is to preserve, restore, and protect the primary public park belonging to the Village of Larchmont, including its public use amentities, fields and other public facilities. FPC's secondary purpose is to preserve, restore, and protect other smaller parts that are located in the Village of Larchmont.
What it reported doing in 2024
During 2024 the Conservancy continued building a park, and began construction on a basketball court, paddle court and tennis facility.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 87% 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.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 17
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 99.1%; rating input score 99
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1,797.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -45.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -28.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.