Friends of Edgewood

Legal name: Friends of Edgewood Natural Preserve

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943188191
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Redwood City, CA, US
Phone
1-650-367-7576
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Botanical, Horticultural, and Landscape Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$148,848
Expenses
$71,763
Assets
$997,631
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Peter Ingram (president and director)
  • Barrie Moore (vice-president and director)

People named in this filing

  • Peter Ingram (president and director)
  • Barrie Moore (vice-president and director)
  • Angela Mallett (treasurer and director)

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

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

Overview

Mission

The Friends of Edgewood is the all-volunteer, donor-funded, non-profit 501(c)3 organization dedicated to supporting Edgewood County Park and Natural Preserve.

What it reported doing in 2025

Nature Education We provide volunteers to staff the Education Center at Edgewood Park and Natural Preserve update exhibits and maintain the office. We provide a quarterly newsletter. Additional activities include maintenance of the native plant garden wildflower surveys maintaining a display of plants in flower and an online field guide of plants and animals found at Edgewood. We also participate in educational outreach at local events.

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 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.5%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 83.7%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $106.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 85; 85th 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 51.8%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.9; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 47.5% of revenue deployed · 83.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $60K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.