Neighborhood Land Power Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 232889697
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Phone
- 6104068334
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Job Training
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,281,714
- Expenses
- $635,573
- Assets
- $1,848,275
- Liabilities
- $29,101
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- NOELLE WARFORD (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- REBECCA FRUEHWALD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- NOELLE WARFORD (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $71,566 total reported compensation
- REBECCA FRUEHWALD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $56,281 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Neighborhood land power projects mission is to build a neighborhood rooted food and land system through community leadership developtment and land based strategies in west philadelphia
What it reported doing in 2024
Neighborhood food farms (nf) was founded by utc and three community leaders as a solution to the food insecurity and the growing number of abandoned lots in haddington. After signifigant remediation, nf farm is now a fully functioning three-quarter acre urban vegetable farm. In addition, we have partnered with neighbors to develop 27 other vacant lots into pocket parks, community gardens, and educational spaces. Together, three sites compromise a neighborhood food system that annually produces around 3,000 pounds of sustainably grown vegetables. The community gardens are open to all neighbors and serve as public spaces to access land, tools, resources, and knowledge to grow food together.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 44
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 74
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 30.6%; rating input score 31
- Program expense ratio: 60.5%; rating input score 61
- Fundraising efficiency: $17.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 99.4%; rating input score 99; 49th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 50.4%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.91; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 20.1%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 30.6% of revenue deployed · 60.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $385K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 12 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.