Friends of Tryon Creek

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237079356
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5036364398
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Parks and Playgrounds

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,289,862
Expenses
$2,852,232
Assets
$2,226,183
Liabilities
$196,220

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • GABE SHEOSHIPS (Executive Dir.): $132,280 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of friends of tryon creek, in partnership with Oregon state parks, is to inspire every community to identify, cultivate or reclaim their relationship with nature in this cherished urban forest.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, fotc completed the construction of a new educational facility on-site at tryon creek state natural area. This cost includes permitting, material cost and construction labor. Fotc provided management, oversight, and direction for the project. New facility was completed in 2025, allowing for program expansion and furthering partnerships with diverse communities of park stewards.fotc fundraised the entirety of the project, which will be owned by Oregon state parks. Facility honors the indigenous cultural heritage of the lower willamette river basin and will serve thousands of youth and families for generations to come.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: -24.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $132K · 15 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.