City Fruit

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800579830
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2069223967
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$322,472
Expenses
$321,971
Assets
$38,132
Liabilities
$3,974

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EMILY TOMITA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JASON GIROIR (PRESIDENT)
  • BJ BELL (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • EMILY TOMITA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $89,800 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

City fruit stewards and harvests from urban fruit trees to support sustainable and equitable access to fruit within the seattle community. Our three main programs include our harvest program volunteer and education program and tree care services. Collectively our programs bring our community together in a shared effort to reduce food insecurity by protecting the health of local fruit trees increasing the accessibility of locally harvested fruit and cultivating knowledge and connection to public orchards.

What it reported doing in 2025

Volunteer and education: city fruit hosted over 50 volunteer and education events to steward fruit trees and harvest fruit from public and private orchards. Over 200 individuals attended educational workshops and learning opportunities. Volunteers filled 449 volunteer shifts at over a dozen ourchards which equates to over 1,000 hours of volunteer service.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.2%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 60.3%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.2% of revenue deployed · 60.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $194K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.