Pride of Ticonderoga Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
141666190
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Ticonderoga, NY, USA
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rural Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$941,808
Expenses
$833,011
Assets
$622,348
Liabilities
$6,146

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NICOLE JUSTICE GREEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • NICOLE JUSTICE GREEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $114,519 total reported compensation
  • GLEEN SWAJGER (CONSTRUCTION MANAGER): $28,016 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Pride nrdc serves as a designated rural preservation company dedicated to strengthening communities through housing rehabilitation downtown revitalization historic preservation community planning educational programs placemaking the arts and comprehensive community development throughout essex warren Washington and surrounding counties.

What it reported doing in 2023

PRIDE NRDC advances historic preservation by restoring and preserving architecturally significant homes and buildings particularly those located in designated hamlets and historic districts. When necessary for public safety the organization also oversees the strategic demolition of unsafe structures that pose risks to the community. In coordination with local and state partners PRIDE NRDC supports placemaking initiatives by installing interpretive signage and commemorative displays that celebrate local history heritage and cultural identity. These efforts help protect the regions character promote tourism and educate the public while balancing preservation with thoughtful redevelopment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 82% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 3
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 2.8%; rating input score 3
  • Program expense ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 3
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.6%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.1%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 2.8% of revenue deployed · 3.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $27K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $115K · 8 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $395K reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 3/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.