Releaf Cville

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
612190970
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Charlottesville, VA, USA
Phone
4349896265
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$419,381
Expenses
$218,154
Assets
$180,670
Liabilities
$3

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • CATHERINE BOYD (EXECUTIVE DI): $57,515 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Releaf cville is rooted in a simple truth: trees save lives-so we save trees. We protect the health of charlottesville by expanding and maintaining the tree canopy, focusing on neighborhoods impacted by rising heat as the climate changes. We do this by planting trees, preserving mature trees, and educating the next generation of environmental leaders.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education/advocacy we have built a number of programs to educate students about the value of trees and nature in the city. We have given presentations and facilitated activities for elementary school children, organized environmental career fairs for middle and high school students and the created the green team. In the summer, the green team learns about trees, climate change and how to plant and care for trees. In the fall, they canvas neighborhoods for free trees and finally help plant the trees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.7%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 68.7%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 71.8%; rating input score 72; 49th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 48%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.83; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.7% of revenue deployed · 68.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $150K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $58K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.