Society of American Foresters

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
530204630
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2029383910
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,352,482
Expenses
$6,512,396
Assets
$27,280,718
Liabilities
$2,739,547

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REBECCA BARNARD (PRESIDENT)
  • BETTINA RING (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SAM COOK (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • TERRY BAKER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • TERRY BAKER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $293,519 total reported compensation
  • SUSANNE METZ (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $162,747 total reported compensation
  • PATRICIA FINCHAM (DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS): $124,442 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 mission of the society of american foresters is to advance sustainable management of forest resources through science, education, and technology, promoting professional excellence while ensuring the continued health, integrity, and use of forests to benefit society in perpetuity.

What it reported doing in 2024

Membership services: the society's membership program serves society members by ensuring that they receive timely, high quality, and highly valued services. The program is responsible for recruiting, engaging, retaining members, providing customer service, managing professional recognition, and state society compliance. Marketing and outreach: the society's marketing and outreach efforts constitute a comprehensive communications program that spans the organization's portfolio of work and amplifies the value of the forestry profession across the forest sector and beyond. This program enhances the society's online presence and brand recognition, while recruiting for our cause and making the case for forest climate solutions.state societies: through its state societies, divisions, and chapters, the society supports the work of 30 state societies and 141 chapters across the us that provide value, education, networking, and other benefits to members and the general public. Policy and public affairs: the society's policy and public affairs program works with policymakers, partner organizations, and coalitions to build awareness and promote science-based, sustainable forest management and give forestry and natural resources professionals the policy tools, funding, and other authorities they need to be successful. Through the policy and public affairs program, the society also organizes stakeholder meetings funded by government grants to convene the sector and benefit the broader forestry community. #forestproud: the society's #forestproud program is the forest sector's greatest communications asset. When #forestproud was launched, its goal was to bring the forest sector together to better tell the story of who we are, what we do, and why we are proud of what we contribute to our communities and ecosystems. Together, we built the #forestproud community. And today, we are better positioned to elevate trusted voices within the sector, promote sustainable forestry practices, and increase opportunities for public engagement with the sector at scale.

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 98% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 78.3%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 76.8%; rating input score 77; 20th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.5%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.19; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.6% of revenue deployed · 78.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $5.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $294K · 18 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $125K reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.