Circlewood

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270060215
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Camano Island, WA, USA
Phone
2063195224
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$483,954
Expenses
$373,363
Assets
$2,203,404
Liabilities
$1,115

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES AMADON (EXECUTIVE DI): $108,855 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Circlewood's mission is to accelerate the greening of humanity through spiritual renewal, ecological leadership, and creative earthkeeping.

What it reported doing in 2025

In our media work, we completed our sixth earthkeepers podcast season. We also grew the readership of our online journal, the ecological disciple. In our education work, we continued to develop our unique framework, the journey of ecological discipleship. We completed one ecological leadership cohort, co-piloted a vocational discernment program with the trinity education foundation, continued work with area churches, and hosted a weeklong program for middle and high schoolers called edify: ecological discipleship immersion for youth. In our development of circlewood village (retreat and learning center), we completed construction on our first building, the sine center for ecological learning, began construction on a small office, hosted educational programming, volunteer work parties, and continued to implement aspects of our 30-year forest management plan.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.4%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 61.4%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.9%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.9; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.4% of revenue deployed · 61.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $229K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $109K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2011 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 47/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.