Watershed Agricultural Council of the New York City Watersheds Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161447322
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Walton, NY, USA
Phone
6078657790
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,180,494
Expenses
$17,099,677
Assets
$24,336,532
Liabilities
$21,911,515

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • RYAN NAATZ (EXECUTIVE DI): $201,056 total reported compensation
  • AMY FAULKNER (DIRECTOR OF): $165,316 total reported compensation
  • CAROL BISHOP (FINANCE DIRE): $161,833 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To support the economic viability of agriculture and forestry through the protection of water quality and the promotion of land conservation in the new yotk city watershed region.

What it reported doing in 2024

Economic viability and outreach: works to raise awareness among the general public, develop connections between watershed producers/products & New York city consumers as well as support farm & forestry landowners in the New York city region through a number of programs including educational workshops, seminars, grassroot festivals/events, farm/forest tours and economic sustainability initiatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.9%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.42; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.9; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.9% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $14.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $201K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.5M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 23 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.