Center for Urban Agriculture at Fairview Gardens

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931213893
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Goleta, CA, USA
Phone
8059677369
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Farmland Preservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,433,277
Expenses
$477,695
Assets
$4,379,962
Liabilities
$3,880

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GEOFF GREEN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • GEOFF GREEN (PRESIDENT)
  • PETER SCHUYLER (SECRETARY)
  • BILL TERRE (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The centers mission is to preserve the agricultural heritage of fairview gardens farm; provide the local community with fresh organically grown fruits and vegetables; demonstrate the economic viability of sustainable agricultural methods for small farm operations; research and interpret the connections between food, land stewardship, and community well-being; and nurture the human spirit through educational programs and public activities.

What it reported doing in 2025

For generations, fairview gardens farm, one of the longest continuously operated organic agricultural operations in the goleta valley, has fed the urban populations that now surround it, educated and inspired young people about food and farming, trained numerous successful farmers, and provided a gathering place for educational and cultural events. Starting in 2022, fairview gardens undertook an extensive revisioning and planning process for the farm, its ageing infrastructure and its programs. In 2023 the farm ceased agricultural production and programming to focus planning for a major rebuild and the capital campaign to fund this work. In 2025 phase 1 of the farms replanting was initiated with cover crop planting on all fields and the purchase of 145 bare root trees and eight thousand asparagus seedlings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 24
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 93
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 9.2%; rating input score 9
  • Program expense ratio: 34.9%; rating input score 35
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th 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: 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 80.4%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.17; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 9.2% of revenue deployed · 34.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $167K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $222K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.