New Jersey Landscape Contractors Association
Legal name: New Jersey Landscape Contractors Association Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 222644678
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Elmwood Park, NJ, United States
- Phone
- 201-703-3600
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $756,635
- Expenses
- $743,315
- Assets
- $411,241
- Liabilities
- $103,209
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- George Futterknecht (Vice President)
- Kevin Dulio (President)
- Gail Woolcott (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Gail Woolcott (Executive Director): $92,762 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 New Jersey Landscape Contractors Association (NJLCA) is a proven resource advancing the integrity, proficiency, and continued growth of the landscape industry through education, training, and legislative advocacy, representing the entire green industry in New Jersey. The New Jersey Landscape Contractors Association (NJLCA) is a proven resource to the landscape contractor, green industry service provider and supplier, as well as the consumer. We are a community of green industry professionals who are dedicated to advancing the integrity, proficiency and continued growth of the landscape and green industry. We do this through education, training and legislative advocacy. New Jersey Landscape Contractors Association represents the entire Green Industry in New Jersey including landscape contractors, landscape architects, sod growers, nurseries, growers, garden centers...
What it reported doing in 2024
Organized major trade show, hosted meetings, provided training
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 74% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 69
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 66.1%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 67.2%; rating input score 67
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.8%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 66.1% of revenue deployed · 67.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $93K · 15 people listed
- Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.