Friends of Mercer County Parks a Nj Non Profit Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462025676
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Whippany, NJ, USA
Phone
9738989494
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$701
Expenses
$8,374
Assets
$199,940
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

People named in this filing

  • Kenneth DeGraw (Receiver)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote awareness of the facilities supported by the mercer county park commission and to fund programs that may be outside the limits of the mercer county park commission's annual operational budget. Expand the resources of the mercer county park commission through annual fundraising. Sponsor special events which promote a sense of community. Provide funding for education for mercer county park commission employees and the general public and, engage in any activity wihtin the purpose for which corporations may be organized under njsa 15a 1-1 et seq.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 5
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1,094.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 23.88; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -33.1% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -49.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.1% of revenue deployed · 4.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 1 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $393 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2017
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.