Today's Youth Matter

Legal name: Todays Youth Matter

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943176545
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Richmond, CA, US
Phone
877-896-5437
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$501,742
Expenses
$554,598
Assets
$88,332
Liabilities
$23,083

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MARSHELLE WILBURN (Executive Dir): $133,265 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Transforming the lives of urban youth by helping Bay Area kids find a way up through year-round programming and mentoring relationships that instill resilience and fulfill their God-given potential.

What it reported doing in 2025

The THRIVE!-4-Kids mentoring program provided support and guidance to 97 children aged 7-15 throughout the school year fostering healing and growth. The program was extended to cater to the needs of youth aged 13 and above through the Emerging Leaders Academy tailored for students in grades 7th-8th. Through weekly small-group sessions children developed strong relationships with adult mentors delving into essential life topics like resilience character leadership and faith. In communities where consistent support is limited THRIVE! offers a sense of empowerment safety and inclusion. Witnessing children embrace their self-worth aspire to greater goals and confront challenges with increased confidence is a testament to the programs impact. This year THRIVE! expanded its reach to include two low-income housing complexes Monterey Pines and Cypress Pines providing mentorship directly in the neighborhoods where families reside. Additionally the online platform launched in 2021 continues to flourish via Zoom ensuring that children outside of Richmond also have a reliable and meaningful community to engage with.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.4%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 59.2%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.5%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 65.4% of revenue deployed · 59.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $328K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $133K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 38 of 40 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.