Ward 8 Woods Conservancy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
834498574
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025202742
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Forest Conservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$620,493
Expenses
$520,200
Assets
$277,339
Liabilities
$265

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MEER GAJJAR (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • NATHAN HARRINGTON (Executive Dir.)
  • MANDY KATZ (BOARD CHAIRPERSON)
  • VICTORIA AKINSEYE (BOARD MEMBER)

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

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

Overview

Mission

Ward 8 Woods Conservancy works to rejuvenate and enhance the beauty, ecological health, and public enjoyment of the more than 500 acres of forest in the Ward 8 section of Washington, DC. We engage residents as paid staff and as volunteers to restore the woodland ecology, build trails, and promote healthy and sustainable living. We use the woods as a tool for healing and empowerment.

What it reported doing in 2025

ADVOCACY PROGRAM. The advocacy of Ward 8 Woods staff carries weight because it comes directly from the front lines - sometimes literally. When we perform maintenance work that the government should do but doesnt, we gain credibility to push for better services. When we spend our days in the woods, lawmakers recognize our expertise. Our executive director has even testified before the DC Council while working in the woods, via Zoom, surrounded by trees and trash that illustrate his points. In 2025, he and other Ward 8 Woods staff delivered or submitted testimony for six DC Council hearings, attended 4 rallies, and endorsed 13 sign-on letters and petitions, They were also featured on local online, print, radio and TV outlets

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% 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 program spending has grown recently. 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: 86
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.5%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 50.5%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: $44.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th 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: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.2%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.6% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.5% of revenue deployed · 50.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $263K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 42/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.