New Jersey League of Conservation Voters Education Fund
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 452995824
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
- Location
- Trenton, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 6093319922
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,423,783
- Expenses
- $1,579,402
- Assets
- $1,915,694
- Liabilities
- $275,295
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- EDWARD POTOSNAK III (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- EDWARD POTOSNAK III (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $105,412 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Dedicated to protecting our precious natural resources by elevating the importance of environmental issues in public discourse and increasing the efficacy of the entire environmental community.
What it reported doing in 2024
Stormwater New Jersey lcv education fund leads a coalition of nonprofit organizations called "flood defense nj," to educate and engage the public about the benefits of stormwater infrastructure to protect the environment and public health. The organization produces tangible, on-the-ground results by assisting communities to upgrade their green infrastructure to effectively address stormwater runoff and aging and outdated infrastructure. The three primary components of this program are (1) direct technical assistance to communities; (2) public education on problems associated with polluted stormwater runoff and the benefits of stormwater utilities; and (3) locally-focused public education and engagement. The organization conducted robust grassroots education, outreach and engagement programming, with the intent of having communities establish stormwater utilities to fund green and gray water infrastructure to clean up polluted runoff and reduce flooding.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 63
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
- Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $21.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 94.9%; rating input score 95; 30th 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: Pass
- 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: 34.8%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.21; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $105K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 9 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 53/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.