Alice Ferguson Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
520694646
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Accokeek, MD, USA
Phone
3012925665
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,060,334
Expenses
$1,886,412
Assets
$11,208,073
Liabilities
$127,187

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Stephen Kim (Board President)
  • Dan Jackson (Vice President)
  • Theresa Cullen (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Theresa Cullen (Executive Director): $172,697 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Alice Ferguson Foundation's mission is to inspire environmental stewardship by giving people the tools to understand, appreciate, and protect nature.

What it reported doing in 2025

Farm and Facilities/ Capital Projects: In 2025, the Alice Ferguson Foundation completed a comprehensive series of capital projects to ensure the safety, preservation, and operational efficiency of its historic campus. Key safety upgrades included the replacement of fire detection systems across the campus facilities, alongside significant electrical panels and power restoration for other key spaces. Structural integrity and climate resilience were prioritized through attic and basement insulation in the Farmhouse to improve energy efficiency. Further enhancements to the student and visitor experience included flooring replacements in the cabin, a redesigned fire circle for educational gatherings, and the installation of high-efficiency climate control (mini-splits) in the student accommodations. These investments preserve the Foundation's unique infrastructure, ensuring a safe and sustainable environment for hands-on environmental and agricultural programming.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 86.9%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $32.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.4%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.94; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.8% of revenue deployed · 86.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $173K · 13 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.