Orchard Community Learning Service

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
275107074
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6025096042
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nutrition

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$413,691
Expenses
$386,500
Assets
$134,163
Liabilities
$119,924

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Wann Angeles (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • John Wann Angeles (CEO): $31,607 total reported compensation
  • Virginia Angeles Wann (Director/Secretary): $5,766 total reported compensation
  • Sowan Thai (Director): $388 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To facilitate access to physically and emotionally welcoming places where organizations, students, and families gather to learn, garden, develop relationships, and advocate and facilitate food access for positive change in food, personal and planetary wellness, and educational opportunities.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Educational Programs of the Orchard's work consisted largely of an agroforestry workforce development program serving individuals in federally designated opportunity zones. During the 2025 fiscal year, two cohorts of 10 participants each were provided 60 hours of classroom and hands-on training. Full-time 2 month internship placements with the OCLC and within the urban forestry industry were offered following each cohort's training. Planning for wellness education our new location was initiated, drawing on the plant-based "healthy roots" of our community's ancestors.Bi-monthly restorative agriculture sessions were also held in our 2-acre Healthy Root Garden.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $87.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 47.9%; rating input score 48; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 6.6%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.89; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.8% of revenue deployed · 92.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $359K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $32K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.