Walnut Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237435878
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
West Lafayette, IN, USA
Phone
7654965013
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$75,772
Expenses
$73,401
Assets
$1,892,110
Liabilities
$86,936

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Steve Felt (President)
  • Claude Diehl (Vice President)
  • Casey Calvert (Immediate Past President)
  • Ben Bruggeman (Iowa State Chapter President)
  • Floyd Schmidt (Kansas State Chapter President)
  • David Robbins (Maryland State Chapter President)

People named in this filing

  • Steve Felt (President)
  • Claude Diehl (Vice President)
  • Casey Calvert (Immediate Past President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The Walnut Council is a science based organization that encourages research, discussion, and application of knowledge about growing hardwood trees. We promote sustainable forest management, conservation, reforestation, and utilization of American black walnut (Juglans nigra) and other fine hardwoods.

What it reported doing in 2024

Science based organization that encourages research, discussion, and application of knowledge about growing hardwood trees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for member benefits.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 24
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 22.6%; rating input score 23
  • Program expense ratio: 23.1%; rating input score 23
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 3.1%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.78; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -70.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 22.6% of revenue deployed · 23.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 28 of 28 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $17K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 29 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 23/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.