New York Landmarks Conservancy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237181785
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2129955260
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,428,574
Expenses
$4,489,123
Assets
$25,047,605
Liabilities
$4,692,422

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

41 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PEG BREEN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PEG BREEN (PRESIDENT): $340,580 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH LEURQUIN (DIRECTOR, FUNDRAISING): $174,995 total reported compensation
  • JAMES MAHONEY (DIRECTOR, NYC HISTORIC PROPERTIES): $158,854 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 conservancy preserves and revitalizes New York's architecture. By doing so, it contributes to New York's economy, tourism and quality of life.

What it reported doing in 2024

The nonprofit technical assistance grant (ntag) program, generously supported by the altman and hearst foundations, seeks to empower nonprofit property owners by supporting them with the financial and technical assistance they need to maintain and restore their buildings. Ntag provides grants of up to $30,000 to enhance the character of landmarked and non-landmarked but architecturally significant buildings. All ntag grants are accompanied by the project management services of conservancy staff, consulting architects, and engineers. Many nonprofit organizations own and/or are stewards of hundreds of properties that provide essential neighborhood services. Since 1986, the program has invested over $1.7 million into 82 buildings in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods across the city. The ntag program creates an important link between preservation and community development in New York city and gives the conservancy an opportunity to partner with nonprofit organizations to increase the scope and range of its work.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, and 27% 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.9%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 72.6%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.4%; rating input score 96; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: 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: 17.3%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.58; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.9% of revenue deployed · 72.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 27 of 28 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $3.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $341K · 41 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $325K reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 46 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 40 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 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.