Shelterwood Collective

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
853979419
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cazadero, CA, USA
Phone
2039155613
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,495,790
Expenses
$3,249,552
Assets
$8,683,896
Liabilities
$93,585

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRANDON JONES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRANDON JONES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $130,332 total reported compensation
  • NIKO ALEXANDRE (CO-TREASURER/MEMBER AT LARGE): $60,387 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Shelterwood collective is a 900-acre community forest, retreat center, and collective of land protectors all working together to advance accessibility to nature and to promote sustainable land stewardship. We are based on unceded southern pomo and kashaya territory, above what is now called the russian river in sonoma county, California. Shelterwood was established on the premise that ecosystem health can only be achieved bycommunities who are in deep relationship with the earth and with oneanother. Through land stewardship, forest restoration, andcommunity and cultural programs, we heal interconnected ecosystems and help increase access to the outdoors for historically marginalized communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community outreach and workshops. Welcomed a number of different groups to the land to develop deeper connections with nature, with their own organizational missions, and with the staff. Hosted small scale retreats.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.5%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $25.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 27.7%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.67; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.5% of revenue deployed · 80.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $130K · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.