Nature for All
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 831265253
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2018
- Location
- Monterey Park, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3239927683
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Natural Resources Conservation and Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,478,900
- Expenses
- $2,325,871
- Assets
- $1,458,276
- Liabilities
- $636,690
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- THOMAS WONG (President)
Highest reported compensation
- BELEN BERNAL (Executive Dir.): $134,539 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Nature for all builds a diverse base of support to ensure that everyone in the losangeles area has equitable access to the wide range of benefits which natureprovides. We're committed to building support to protect, create access to ourforests, rivers, and parks, and developing a new diverse generation of environmentalleaders and stewards who connect to and care for our public lands.
What it reported doing in 2024
During the fiscal year, Nature for All advanced its mission while achieving significant programmatic growth, supported by renewed funding and new contracts focused on expanding equitable access to outdoor education and recreation. The organization prioritizes engaging communities in some of the most densely populated and park-poor areas of Los Angeles County, delivering programs that foster meaningful connections between participants, community leaders, and coalition partners.Since its inception through June 30, 2025, Nature for All has engaged more than 4,750 community members through its Leadership Development trainings, All Aboard for Nature trips, and Outdoor Equity programming.Nature for All provides Angelenos with transformational, educational, and culturally relevant experiences in nature that promote connection, stewardship, and civic engagement. During the reporting period, the organization served approximately 2,455 participants across Los Angeles County through outdoor programs, leadership development, and advocacy initiatives.Through our Leadership Ladder, Nature for All trained and supported 395 emerging leaders, equipping them with the tools and knowledge to advance from program participants to community advocates and organizers. Of these, 21 individuals assumed leadership roles by facilitating outings, leading community events, or participating in advocacy efforts.Nature for All hosted Train-the-Trainer (T2T) sessions with over 25 participants and organized approximately 35 All Aboard for Nature trips, engaging over 1,830 community members in our outdoor access trips and educational tours. These programs reduced real and perceived barriers to outdoor access by providing free, inclusive, and culturally relevant experiences, which increased participant comfort in outdoor spaces and fostered a stronger sense of belonging in nature.Stewardship and advocacy remain central to the organizations work. During the year, 200 participants engaged in stewardship activitiessuch as community clean-ups, forest clean-ups, and "Leave No Trace" conservation education dayswithin the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument. Additionally, 65 community members, including coalition partners, participated in advocacy efforts related to public lands and environmental justice. These efforts included engagement in federal initiatives to protect and implement the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, as well as federal, state and local campaigns focused on public land defense initiatives and equitable access to parks and water resources in local urban communities.Nature for All also contributed to broader movement-building efforts at the intersection of urban and wild spaces, supporting policies and initiatives that address the wildland-urban interface and expand equitable access to nature. Through these efforts, the organization continues to build a diverse base of leaders and community members committed to environmental stewardship and long-term systems change across Los Angeles County.
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 94% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 81
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 79.2%; rating input score 79
- Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $64.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 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: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.2%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 37.5% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 39.1% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 26.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 79.2% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $135K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.