Palisades Parks Conservancy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
134138370
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
9172678068
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$391,399
Expenses
$436,543
Assets
$2,205,325
Liabilities
$47,803

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH GREENSTEIN (PRESIDENT)
  • CAROL ASH (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • REMY SCHWARTZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • REMY SCHWARTZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $140,569 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Palisades parks conservancy, inc. (the "conservancy"), formerly friends of the palisades interstate park commission, inc was formed in march 2001 in the state of New York as a 501(c)3 nonprofit. Our mission is to preserve the palisades interstate park's rich history and biodiversity, and protect america's first bi-state park system. We are committed to supporting parks where all visitors can play, connect, and immerse themselves in nature and culture. Palisades parks conservancy achieves its mission by raising funds and delivering programs and projects that provide education and stewardship, environmental conservation and restoration, historic preservation, public access and recreation, and protection of natural and cultural resources, all benefiting the palisades interstate park system. It raises and administers funds that improve the facilities, preserve environmental and cultural sites and provides education within the palisades interstate park system.

What it reported doing in 2024

Funds raised to support programming, activities and infrastructure or management improvements benefiting the palisades interstate park system, the palisades interstate park commission and visitor experience.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 80% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.6%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 62.9%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 17.3%; rating input score 17; 38th 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: -11.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.05; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.6% of revenue deployed · 62.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $275K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $141K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 17/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.