The Field Semester

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471206481
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
5109826974
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Secondary, High School

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,697,998
Expenses
$638,535
Assets
$9,548,362
Liabilities
$69,161

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

People named in this filing

  • PAUL SCOTT (Director)
  • ANDY SPEAR (Director)
  • YAMA JAMILI (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

TFS seeks to reintroduce students to a deeper sense of self and community through an intensive interdisciplinary education on the land. Academically rigorous and experientially rich, our innovative program inspires and equips our graduates to be leaders in community restoration: environmental, social, political, and cultural. After a semester of deep learning and action, TFS graduates will be able to establish themselves anywhere as integrated and restorative parts of their communities and of the systems that sustain all life.

What it reported doing in 2024

TFS is in the process of building its campus and launching its program. TFS's core program will be a high-school semester program which bringstogether diverse students to live, work and learn together, on the land. Students from various schools will come spend an entire semester in residence at TFSengaging in project-based, hands-on learning, small community living, and active environmental stewardship, all while earning credits toward their high schoolgraduation. TFS is currently in the planning and development phase of this program: activities include bolstering the organization and program's reputation with sending schools, securing relevant accreditation, refining the curriculum, devising staffing plans and operating budgets, identifying student pipelines and partner organizations, as well as planning, entitling, and constructing the campus. All of our programmatic efforts and resources are currently focused and directed at thelaunch of this program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 19
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 91
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 14.7%; rating input score 15
  • Program expense ratio: 22.7%; rating input score 23
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62.4%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.95; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 36.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 50% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 14.7% of revenue deployed · 22.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $145K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $124K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 15/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.