Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 222810757
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Pennington, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 6097301560
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Land Resources Conservation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,426,690
- Expenses
- $702,001
- Assets
- $12,673,556
- Liabilities
- $35,485
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JUDITH KARP (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- MARK BEAN (VICE PRESIDE)
- HELEN CORVELEYN (TRUSTEE)
- ROBERT FLORY (TRUSTEE)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of friends of hopewell valley open space is to promote conservation in the hopewell valley region through open space preservation, informed land use, wise stewardship, education and outreach.
What it reported doing in 2024
Community conservation land stewardship programs - guided by its primary mission to preserve and protect land throughout hopewell valley, fohvos not only performs land stewardship work on fohvos preserves, but also on other public and private lands. These programs are funded through corporate and foundation grants, individual donations, and fees-for- service. Corporate, community and student volunteers help fohvos stewardship staff with planting, trail work and restorations. Private landowners in the community conservation program received guidance on native plants, invasive species, and deer management and may purchase native plants at cost. Fohvos community conservation extends the ecological land stewardship benefits to over 3,000 acres of land and results in improved biodiversity and water quality, increased habitats for declining wildlife populations, and a community that is more connected to the land.
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 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
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 90
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.3%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $25.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 50.8%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 18.05; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 55.3% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $563K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.