Crater Lake National Park Trust C/o Jim Chadderdon

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205826128
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Crater Lake, OR, USA
Phone
5416222808
Rating
37
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Parks and Playgrounds

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,803
Expenses
$64,474
Assets
$67,610
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • T J HOLMES (TRUSTEE)
  • JIM CHADDERDON (BOARD CHAIR)
  • STEVE BOYARSKI (TREASURER)

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

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

Overview

Mission

To help protect, promote and enhance crater lake national park, its unique water purity and its value for human inspiration and knowledge.

What it reported doing in 2024

The trust helps protect, promote and enhance crater lake national park. The trust provided a grant to be used toward the replacement of bridges on the annie creek trail at the mazama campground within the park. The trust offered its support in developing a relationship with china to make mount wuyi, a national park in the fujian province of china, a sister-park of crater lake national park. The trust maintains the website, which provides information about the park, the activities it has to offer, and the park's history. The trust continues to promote crater lake license plates.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -131.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.05; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -27.4% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.