Trestle Movement Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870968313
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
4129150616
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Reported finances

Revenue
$754,284
Expenses
$965,259
Assets
$1,526,889
Liabilities
$906,186

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MOLLIE RUSKIN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • XENA NI (SECRETARY): $198,888 total reported compensation
  • MOLLIE RUSKIN (PRESIDENT): $30,791 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 trestle movement fund is organized primarily for the purpose of promoting the social welfare of the public by providing free, hands-on support to non-profit organizations to reinforce the technology scaffolding on which our 21st century movements for justice, equity and progress stand.

What it reported doing in 2024

Strengthen the most important existing and emerging tech tools in the movement ecosystem to withstand the pressures and risks of scale, scrutiny, and usage during the 2024 election cycle. Provide tech strategy, staffing, security, and crisis response support to movement partners and nonpartisan organizations at fair-market rates, ensuring that all assistance is programmatic in nature and not provided as in-kind contributions to any campaign or committee.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 65% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.5%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 73.8%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -28%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.58; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.59; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -30.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.5% of revenue deployed · 73.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $713K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $655K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.