National Association of Landscape Professionals Foundation I Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 391871776
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Fairfax, VA, USA
- Phone
- 7037369666
- Rating
- 60
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $804,193
- Expenses
- $494,460
- Assets
- $5,515,896
- Liabilities
- $172,824
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRITTRAM WOOD (CEO)
- JENNIFER MYERS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- JOE KETTER (PRESIDENT)
- PAUL FRAYND (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
- CHRIS JOYCE (IMMEDIATE PAST-PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- BRITTRAM WOOD (CEO): $386,783 total reported compensation
- CHARLES A BRAY (SR. VP GOVT RELATIONS & MEMBERSHIP): $288,638 total reported compensation
- CAROL KEELING (CFO): $254,274 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The nalp foundation will strengthen the landscape industry through education, scholarships, and research for the benefit of the nation's green spaces.
What it reported doing in 2024
To award scholarships to college students who pursue a career as a landscape professional and work to attract new professional candidates to the industry through public education to enhance the image and raise the profile of landscape industry careers.research is designed to educate the industry on creating healthy, sustainable environments; and provide research on demographics of workforce.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 63% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 44
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 65
- Sustainability: 77
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 50.8%; rating input score 51
- Program expense ratio: 46.6%; rating input score 47
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 38.5%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.16; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 20.3%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 50.8% of revenue deployed · 46.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 18 of 19 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $230K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $387K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $116K reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.