Free to Be

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208880651
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Santa Rosa, CA, US
Phone
(707) 526-3819
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$318,324
Expenses
$329,329
Assets
$100,574
Liabilities
$1,814

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Leslie Jordan (Executive Dir.): $80,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Free to Be builds confidence in Sonoma County youth by empowering them with tools to make healthy choices in today's ever-changing culture.

What it reported doing in 2024

Free to Be was able to reach more than 1,000 Sonoma County youth with a positive message of building confidence and healthy relationships. Free to Bes message to the youth in Sonoma County has always been about empowering them with the knowledge and tools to make healthy choices now to prepare them for successful futures. Free to Be continues to partner with schools, youth-serving organizations, and families to provide educational components that create a collective impact on positive youth development. Free to Bes educational components address a range of objectives using the 6 Cs of positive youth development: confidence, connection, caring, character, contribution, and competence. Since we began in 1992, Free to Be has reached more than 100,000 youth through our presentations and educational components, and we have trained and mentored more than 500 peer educators.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.4%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 75.8%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 78.4% of revenue deployed · 75.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $250K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.