Green Cities Accord

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471930695
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6122174485
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Beautification and Aesthetics

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$450,966
Expenses
$537,012
Assets
$2,035,389
Liabilities
$102,283

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Michaela Neu (Director of Programs and Operations): $113,389 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Green Cities Accord is a nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering climate resilient communities through investments in tree canopy infrastructure to improve environmental health, climate resilience, and equity in communities. We focus on securing funding for urban forestry, building public-private partnerships, and supporting municipalities in planting and maintaining trees. Green Cities Accord continues to grow both the Urban Forest Fund and the Urban Tree Carbon Offset Program as new funding mechanisms to address the chronic lack of funding for urban forestry initiatives. The Urban Forest Fund serves as a flexible funding mechanism that channels private and philanthropic investments into tree planting and maintenance efforts,. The Urban Tree Carbon Offset Program allows organizations to reduce their carbon footprint by purchasing verified offsets tied to local tree projects, with revenue reinvested into expanding and preserving the urban forest.

What it reported doing in 2025

As part of our urban tree carbon offset program, Green Cities Accord partners with municipal forestry departments to protect and maintain trees for at least 25 years. This long-term stewardship ensures that newly planted trees survive to maturity and provide maximum climate, environmental, and public health benefits. Verified carbon offsets are sold to companies working toward decarbonization, and the revenue is reinvested in additional tree planting and care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.1%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.79; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.1%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -27.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -23.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $457K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $113K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • 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.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.