Agricademy Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 821971350
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Phone
- 5135808608
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Agricultural Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $121,125
- Expenses
- $99,000
- Assets
- $60,387
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
People named in this filing
- Nadia Ruffin (Founder/Director/Instructor)
- Chandler Glover (Program Manager/Instructor)
- Rose Black (Secretary/Outreach Specialist)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Agricultural Research, Farming, Agricultural Education
What it reported doing in 2024
The program, designed for 100 students at a local elementary school, aimed to provide them with resources that would emphasize the importance of local growth and the development of a community-based food system. It focused on urban farming, both indoor and outdoor, educating the students about nutritious food consumption. Additionally, the program sought to expose these young minds to various careers and opportunities within the agriculture industry. A significant emphasis of this project was on Black/African American youth, addressing specific challenges they faced. Firstly, many of these students had little to no exposure to the agriculture industry, primarily due to their geographical location. This lack of exposure often left them unaware of the potential and opportunities within this field. Secondly, the program recognized and addressed the negative perceptions of farming that had been ingrained in these youths due to systemic racism, historical exclusion, lack of resources, and other societal factors. Lastly, the program acknowledged that these students had limited to no knowledge about starting and operating a farming business. The program was thus structured to provide them with the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to embark on such ventures, should they choose to in the future. The overarching goal was to instill a sense of possibility and empowerment in these students, helping them see agriculture and farming not just as historical or economic activities, but as viable, modern career paths and important elements of community and personal wellness.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 91% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and assets have declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 94
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 55
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.1%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 18.3%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 101%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $110K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.