Pine Tree State 4-H Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
016011487
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Orono, ME, USA
Phone
2075813739
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,834,662
Expenses
$1,520,289
Assets
$13,949,098
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sean Cameron (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNI RICCI (EMPLOYEE): $67,000 total reported compensation
  • Jon Potter (Employee): $39,805 total reported compensation
  • RYAN PHILBROOK (EMPLOYEE): $30,228 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See Schedule O. To support the development of youth education programs and educational learning centers across Maine including support to 4-H Youth Development education.

What it reported doing in 2025

Support to the Magic Lantern Innovation Center for youth originally opened in 2021. Focus is on youth entrepreneur programs in science, engineering, technology, the visual and performing arts, leadership and nutrition. The Magic Lantern Innovation Center offers quality hands-on learning, youth internships, and large group specialty programs in the STEM and arts areas. Our goal is to provide support for enrichment programs that inspire youth aspirations, engage children and teens in lifelong learning and in applied real life education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 80.9%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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 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: 17.1%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.18; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.4%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67% of revenue deployed · 80.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $67K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $27K reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 21 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.