Tree Musketeers

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954277842
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
El Segundo, CA, USA
Phone
3103220263
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Forest Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$346,468
Expenses
$334,604
Assets
$166,494
Liabilities
$75,053

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SAMANTHA CANO (PRESIDENT)
  • JULIAN POYOUROW (PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GAIL CHURCH (EXECUTIVE DIR): $13,000 total reported compensation
  • JULIAN POYOUROW (PAST PRESIDENT): $480 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Program goals are to improve the environment through youth-led projects;

What it reported doing in 2014

Hometown program - while tree musketeers' scope and network is national, the south bay of southern California is where most of the youth leaders (ages 10 to 18) live and work. They implement hands-on projects in youth leadership, public education and urban forestry as models for replication by kids in hometowns everywhere. 2014 saw 1,059 volunteers dedicate 4,509 hours to the annual arbor day celebration, memory tree plantings, tending 1,007 trees and restoring 1.85 acres of wildlife habitat. Six leadership courses prepared 27 more young people to take the environmental lead, and 37 outreach events along with print and electronic media reached 4,639,782 people.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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

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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 93.2%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $63.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd 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: 70%; rating input score 70; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.4%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90% of revenue deployed · 93.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $312K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $13K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.