The Greenwich Tree Conservancy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208181832
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Greenwich, CT, USA
Phone
2036227380
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$332,641
Expenses
$301,440
Assets
$1,459,558
Liabilities
$3,363

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LESLIE LEE (INTERIM PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH HOPLEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KATHERINE DZIKIEWICZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHERINE DZIKIEWICZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $82,156 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The greenwich tree conservancy is open to all interested citizens, governed by a board and advised by an advisory board. It was created to preserve and enhance the tree and forest resources of greenwich, ct to benefit the community, its health and its quality of life.

What it reported doing in 2025

The tree conservancy together with the town of greenwich began a town-wide arboretum. The conservancy has identified and labeled over 1,250 trees beginning in bruce park in downtown greenwich and expanding to the montgomery pinetum in cos cob, byram park, cos cob park and binney park in old greenwich. We are now labeling at libraries and schools and beginning on roadsides. Our arboretum has been reaccredited as a level ii arboretum by arbnet, an internationally recognized assessor of arboreta.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.7%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 50.3%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: $38.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.4%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.84; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.3%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.7% of revenue deployed · 50.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $152K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $82K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.