Parker Ranch Foundation Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
996064620
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Kamuela, HI, USA
Phone
8088857311
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,189,066
Expenses
$7,465,084
Assets
$263,523,099
Liabilities
$6,100,264

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TIMOTHY E JOHNS (TRUSTEE CHAI): $105,750 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL K FUJIMOTO (TRUSTEE): $102,550 total reported compensation
  • TOBY B TANIGUCHI (TRUSTEE): $100,850 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide perpetual support for designated beneficiaries engaged in healthcare, education, and charitable purposes for the benefit of the kamuela area, through the sound management of trust assets.

What it reported doing in 2024

Parker ranch foundation trust ("prft", the "trust") was formed on november 12, 1992. Richard smart dedicated substantial assets from his personal estate to prft to be held for the benefit of named beneficiaries. At december 31, 2024, such named beneficiaries were Hawaii preparatory academy, parker school, queen's north Hawaii community hospital and the Hawaii community foundation. Such transferred assets were comprised primarily of real estate on the island of Hawaii and ranch assets/operations known as "parker ranch". Prft currently holds some real estate and ranch assets/operations as parker ranch, inc. ("pri"); a wholly-owned, for profit subsidiary. Prft is directed by trustees who are responsible for managing the trust's assets in accordance with the trust agreement and selection/oversight of directors and the management team that runs the pri operations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.1%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 53.8%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.8%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 35.3; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.7%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.1% of revenue deployed · 53.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $106K · 3 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $444K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.