Boston Farms Community Land Trust Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822328676
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Roxbury, MA, USA
Phone
6178980091
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$374,952
Expenses
$419,168
Assets
$236,203
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVE MADAN (PRESIDENT)
  • LIANA POSTON (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOY GARY (CLERK): $89,071 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Engaging in the economic development of urban areas and to create economic opportunities for underprivileged, underserved, or low income residents, the corporation shall engage in the development and stewardship of land for urban farming and around urban centers.

What it reported doing in 2022

Property maintenance - our land stewardship & farmer support program assists farmers in the maintenance, health, and stewardship of each farmsite. The program stewards a community-led farmer selection process for newly developed properties, provides members with business support and agricultural technical assistance. During the 2022 calendar year we maintained 4 farmsites, served 1 nonprofit organization, 1 farm business, and 8 farmers, and 6 farm interns. Our resources are made available to over 120 gardeners and farmers in the boston area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.1%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 60.4%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -11.8%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.2%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 96.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 43.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.4% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.1% of revenue deployed · 60.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $253K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2021 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.