The White Memorial Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
060588850
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Litchfield, CT, USA
Phone
8605670857
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,928,679
Expenses
$1,309,136
Assets
$33,834,824
Liabilities
$413,656

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANN BORZILLERI (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LUKAS HYDER (EXECUTIVE DI): $99,852 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 white memorial foundation is dedicated to land preservation by adhering to the following guiding principles: 1)conservation - to explore practical applications of our knowledge about the natural environment in order to discover principles of wise resourse management. 2)education - to foster personal experiences of nature under the guidance of skilled teachers and leaders. 3)recreation - to provide the public with opportunities to enjoy the resources and beauties of nature in a world where such opportunities are too rapidly becoming more difficult. 4)research - to promote the search for knowledge about our natural environment, through organized scientific observation and experimentation and to share this knowledge with the public.

What it reported doing in 2025

General conservation - exploration of practical applications about the natural environment. Expenses include the maintenance of the foundation and research and education relating to forest and wildlife.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.9%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 72.9%; rating input score 73
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 27th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.1%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.85; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.9% of revenue deployed · 72.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $954K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.