Sacramento Tree Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942825234
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9169248733
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Forest Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,629,416
Expenses
$2,401,753
Assets
$15,793,996
Liabilities
$1,307,223

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jessica Sanders (Executive Director)
  • Caylyn Wright (Past President)
  • Steve Johns (Vice President)
  • Michelle Smira Brattmiller (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jessica Sanders (Executive Director): $156,155 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Sacramento Tree Foundation is a community benefit organization working to grow thriving communities through stewardship of our urban forest.

What it reported doing in 2024

Sacramento shade/neighborwoods: continuing a 30-year partnership with the sacramento municipal utility district, the sacramento tree foundation in fiscal year 2020 engaged and educated over 4,000 sacramento county residents in the planting and care of over 10,000 shade trees. The trees were planted to maximize environmental and public health benefits, such as: energy savings, carbon sequestration, improving air quality, lowering urban heat, and stormwater reduction. To ensure that trees are planted and cared for in neighborhoods that need them most, we work directly with community members through our neighborwoods program. These initiatives focus on building local leadership and delivering programming that is customized to meet eachcommunitys specific need. This year, over 2,500 volunteers joined us to plant, care for, and steward trees in sacramento's urban communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 73% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.7%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 78.5%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.7%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.58; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.7% of revenue deployed · 78.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $167K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.