Thorne Ecological Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
846029250
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boulder, CO, USA
Phone
3034993647
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,681,033
Expenses
$3,460,225
Assets
$7,411,716
Liabilities
$1,489,934

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KEITH DESROSIERS (EXECUTIVE DI): $193,282 total reported compensation
  • LEANN AREND (DEPUTY DIREC): $115,373 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Thorne's mission is to build earth stewardship by connecting youth to nature through joyful, hands-on, place-based environmental education experiences.

What it reported doing in 2024

Core programs: thorne accomplishes its mission through nature-based education programs that primarily serve boulder county youth and families. Programs are designed to build earth stewardship by connecting children and youth to nature through joyful, hands-on, place-based environmental education experiences. School and community programs: thorne provides field trips, field days, in-school lessons, and after-school programs that support academic learning and build nature connection through direct experience with local ecosystems. Fy25 scfd attendance support documented qualifying tour group/program attendance for field trip, field day, in-school, and after- school activities. ------ see schedule o for more details ------

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 94% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.3%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.7%; rating input score 93; 28th 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: -29.1%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.14; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.3% of revenue deployed · 74.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $193K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.