Glen Conservancy Ltd

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710883483
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Fultonville, NY, USA
Phone
5189227051
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose

Reported finances

Revenue
$47,391
Expenses
$60,965
Assets
$70,883

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ronald Burch (President)
  • Rachel Bliven (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • Ronald Burch (President)
  • Rachel Bliven (Vice-President)
  • Susan Whiteman (Treasurer)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary purposeis to engage in educational and cultural activities in support of the hamlet of Glen, Montgomery County, NY, and outreach activities of an educational and cultural nature within the greater Town of Glen. These activities include those that enhance and encourage preservation of the historic character of the hamlet and town, preserve the town's rural character and open spaces, and preserve and enhance the town's farming operations and agricultural lands.

What it reported doing in 2025

Beautification and village green maintenance for Memorial Day Parade; 200 people attended.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 22
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 23.8%; rating input score 24
  • Program expense ratio: 18.5%; rating input score 18

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28.6%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.16; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 48.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -18.3% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 23.8% of revenue deployed · 18.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $11K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 24/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.