Greater Newark Conservancy Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 222691309
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Newark, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 9736424646
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Beautification and Aesthetics
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,810,962
- Expenses
- $3,422,769
- Assets
- $13,459,483
- Liabilities
- $150,962
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- WILSON CANO (EXECUTIVE DI): $179,975 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Greater newark conservancy is a New Jersey not-for-profit organization that expands access to healthy food, environmental education, and green spaces. We provide hands-on community programs that cultivate sustainability, inspire action, and celebrate the power of nature to heal and uplift.
What it reported doing in 2024
The conservancy's youth & family education program annually provides nutrition and healthy eating lessons, vegetable and fruit taste tests and school gardening lessons for 2,000 schoolchildren as part of its farm to school programming. Environmental education field trips are implemented for school groups at our judith l. Shipley urban environmental center, serving approximately 2,000 elementary school students each year. In addition, monthly healthy meal preparation demonstrations are offered in the center's teaching kitchen and classrooms. Other monthly family environmental education programming is implemented at the center's outdoor teaching gardens. Teacher professional development workshops are provided for teachers and parents, focusing on employing school gardens as outdoor teaching venues. Overall programming focuses on nutritional health and the urban environment. The combined education programs reach approximately 4,500 children and adults during the course of the year.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 77.9%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 95.8%; rating input score 96; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 8 of 8 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -89%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.93; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 19 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.