Americas Grow-A-Row
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 262569598
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Pittstown, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 9086626304
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Services N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,224,840
- Expenses
- $4,030,367
- Assets
- $8,162,734
- Liabilities
- $159,403
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Chip Fernand Paillex III (Pres. & Founder): $242,814 total reported compensation
- Tristan Wallack (VP of Programming): $156,328 total reported compensation
- Jeremy Compton (Dir of Farm Oper.): $139,259 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 Organization's mission is to positively impact as many lives as possible through a volunteer effort of planting, picking, rescuing, and delivering free fresh produce. At Americas Grow-a-Row we:-Provide fresh, healthy produce to those in need-Educate people of all generations about hunger and ways to help-Introduce our youth to farming and healthy eating-Cultivate tomorrows leaders to give back-Contribute to the sustainability of agriculture
What it reported doing in 2025
The purpose of The Organizations programs is to provide people facing food insecurity with access to fresh produce, evidence-based nutrition information, and culinary instruction so that they are empowered by having confidence in their increased (and often new) skill sets and the ability to make informed choices. The program engages and utilizes 10,000+ volunteers and reaches across the state of New Jersey and 21 additional states.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 66%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 22.9%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 19.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 66% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $243K · 19 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 54 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 47 filed related-organization links
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.