CIF LLC Dba Cosecha Impact Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
861553264
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Potomac, MD, USA
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Agricultural Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$627,035
Expenses
$630,034
Assets
$246,770
Liabilities
$21,913

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN GOHRING (AUTHORIZED DIR.): $84,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

CIF LLC, dba Cosecha Impact Fund (the Organization) was incorporated on July 7, 2020, under the limited liability company law of the State of Maryland. Cosecha Impact Fund is a U.S.-based not-for-profit organization whose mission is to promote agricultural development and poverty alleviation in underserved rural communities in Latin America.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cosecha Impact Fund invests in agricultural initiatives that develop the capacity and asset base of smallholder households by providing inputs, education, outreach services, and access to credit. With these resources, we enable smallholder households to become successful participants in high-value agricultural supply chains, improve their productivity and earn higher and more stable income. The resulting productivity gains and market linkages serve as a powerful engine for rural communities to build sustainable livelihoods, regenerate vulnerable ecosystems, and empower women and youth. In 2024, we partnered with 2,212 new farming households in communities around Nicaragua and Guatemala, positively impacting household income for 9,266 people.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.7%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 97.2%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $163.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.5%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.3%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 43.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -52.8% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.7% of revenue deployed · 97.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $612K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $84K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.