The Shawangunk Conservancy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133495560
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Accord, NY, USA
Phone
9143250420
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,038
Expenses
$9,436
Assets
$235,808
Liabilities
$3,500

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Hayes (President)
  • Roberta Clements (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • John Hayes (President)
  • Anka Angrist (Trustee)
  • Jean Lerner (Secretary)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization acquires wilderness land in the Shawangunk Mountains of New York State and preserves such land in its natural state for wildlife, protection, education, and recreation

What it reported doing in 2025

We are wrapping up our campaign to raise funds toward a land purchase of 53 acres. We committed to pay for 50% of the cost, and the funds will be conveyed in early 2026. The land will be held and managed by the Rondout Esopus Land Trust. The land is pristine forest on the Shawangunk Ridge, adjacent to other lands that are in process of being protected from development. The Ridge includes Minnewaska State Park, which receives hundreds of thousands of visitors annually. Additionally, we contributed $3500 to the Shawangunk Conglomerate LTD to assist with closing costs for a 108 acre conservation easement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 68.6%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 24.99; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -105.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 62.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.