Ecoculture
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 844901454
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Flagstaff, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 9287799420
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Natural Resources Conservation and Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,094,198
- Expenses
- $1,095,589
- Assets
- $250,900
- Liabilities
- $85,963
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- KEVIN GRADY (DIRECTOR): $85,138 total reported compensation
- CHRISTOPHER UPDIKE (TREASURER): $85,060 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See schedule 0
What it reported doing in 2024
The three largest program service accomplishments for 2024 include: 1)Ecoculture implemented reforestation projects and conservation projects in riparian forests of Arizona, coastal forests of Puerto Rico, and tropical forests in Vietnam with over 50,000 trees planted. This included the develop- ment of long-term funding for each of those regions with an expected 100,000 trees funded to plant next year. 2)Ecoculture provided conser- vation opportunities for communities to help with tree planting in Flagstaff, Arizona, in Luquillo, Puerto Rico, and in Da Nang, Vietnam. Over 1,500 volunteers were engaged in tree planting including over 300 K-12 youth. 3)Ecoculture led environmental education programs in Arizona, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, and Malaysia that included parti- cipation by over 300 youth and publication of 6 research articles relating to student participatory learning.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 60% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 63
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.3%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 96.2%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- 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: -0.1%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 35.6% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 70.2% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 37.9% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 96.3% of revenue deployed · 96.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.