Syracuse Parks Conservancy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271737900
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Syracuse, NY, USA
Phone
3153965844
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$125,554
Expenses
$99,085
Assets
$105,511
Liabilities
$775

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kevin McClelland (President)
  • Christopher Powers (Vice President)
  • Heather McClelland (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Kevin McClelland (President)
  • Christopher Powers (Vice President)
  • Eleanor Krause (Communications Committee Chair)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of Syracuse Parks Conservation is to ensure that all Syracuse Parks, Public Lands and habitats therein are sustainably protected, restored, enhanced and developed for the educational, recreation and wellness uses of our citizens and their guests; we will accomplish this by directing and managing these lands and facilities in a public-private partnership with the City of Syracuse.

What it reported doing in 2024

To ensure that all Syracuse parks, public lands and the habitats therein are substantially protected, restored, enhanced and developed for the educational, recreational and wellness uses of Syracuse citizens and their guests.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 2
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 2%; rating input score 2
  • Program expense ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 3

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.1%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -70% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 2% of revenue deployed · 2.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 2/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.