Agroecology Commons

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
853343221
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
8318184769
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$829,539
Expenses
$921,949
Assets
$112,046
Liabilities
$70

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Jeneba Kilgore (Co-Director): $79,583 total reported compensation
  • Lazzlo Jenkins (Co-Director): $78,282 total reported compensation
  • Brooke Porter (Co-Director): $74,583 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Educate farmers about agroecology.

What it reported doing in 2024

Incubator Farm: Services Provided: education in agroecology through experiential learning & farmer-to-farmer skillshares. People Benefited: 110 Program Activities: Built out infrastructure for the incubator farm where we provide land access for beginning farmers to autonomously and cooperatively grow crops, hone skills, and launch their farm projects with mentorship and support.We hosted 1 incubator in 2024 who grew an array of crops. AC organized four 1/2 day learning exchanges in collaboration with local organizations and trained 45 participants in Solar Panel Build- UC Berkeley Engineering Program; Farm benches building - Girls Garage; Honey House- Laney College Carpentry Class; Rain Water Catchment Design- UC Berkeley Engineering Program. Hosted farm tours with: Spellman, UC Santa Cruz, UC Berkeley, Howard, Laney College, and Tuskegee. Along with multiple 7 volunteer days totalling 64 volunteers.

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

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: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 35.1%; rating input score 35
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41.3%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 45.3% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39% of revenue deployed · 35.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $323K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.