Trees Matter
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 810597674
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 6026892896
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Natural Resources Conservation and Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $987,989
- Expenses
- $866,998
- Assets
- $510,342
- Liabilities
- $29,976
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Aimee Esposito (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Aimee Esposito (Executive Director): $70,444 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 need for trees in the Valley of the Sun has never been greater. Our communities depend on them not only for health and safety infrastructure but also for critical socioeconomic benefits and environmental heat mitigation. Through the education, distribution, and planting of the right trees in the right place, Trees Matter fosters and inspires an increased, more equitable tree canopy in the Valley of The Sun. A resilient future is possible for all generations, we just have to plant it.
What it reported doing in 2024
Our Shade Tree Program provides shade tree education and distribution for local utility companies, Salt River Project, SRP and Mesa Electric, in Arizona. Working with SRP, we help implement a valley wide program that teaches thousands of residents how to plant trees strategically to reduce their air conditioning use while adding trees to the landscape. Residents are provided education on tree placement, planting, maintenance and are given 5 gallon trees to take home and plant. This year with SRP we distributed approximately five thousand trees and educated over two thousand residents. We launched the City of Mesa Electric program in Spring 2024 and are continuing to grow that program with hundreds of trees given out to utility customers in the last year.
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 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 72.3%; rating input score 72
- Program expense ratio: 82.2%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $21.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: 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: 12.2%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.59; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.1%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 72.3% of revenue deployed · 82.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $714K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.