City Slicker Farms

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262216581
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5108787235
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$232,035
Expenses
$4,208,638
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jana Cain (President)

People named in this filing

  • Kelly ErnstFriedman (Executive Dir.)
  • Jana Cain (President)
  • Tina Broder (Director)

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 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We reinforce self-sustaining access to food and build community through urban farming, education, and recreation.

What it reported doing in 2023

Using a model we have developed and honed over the last decade, City Slicker Farms partners with individuals, families and organizations serving low-income residents to build new gardens and deliver mentorship, heath education, and increase fresh food access as part of our "Backyard Garden" program. Program participants receive a fully stocked garden at no cost to them, complete with raised bed planter boxes, seedlings raised in the City Slicker Farms greenhouse, soil and compost. Gardeners then partner with an experienced staff or volunteer mentor who offers support, educational curriculum and/or technical assistance tailored for each individual and site, as well as gardening supplies and seedlings for two years. For many of our institutional and community group partners, we also provide garden-based curriculum to engage their clients in lessons on ecology and nutrition. The Garden Program benefits our community in many ways. For young children, exposure to school gardens and natural environments improves social and emotional development, fosters collaborative skills, alleviates stress, and improves dietary choices. For adults and senior citizens, gardens provide affordable fresh produce, opportunities for recreation and exercise, and for some, the ability to carry out a lifelong hobby that promotes wellbeing. For all of our program participants, we have found that increasing the availability of fresh produce through gardening, and pairing it with nutrition classes focused on preparing healthy meals, creates positive health outcomes for program participants. Every year participants report saving money on grocery bills, eating a more nutritious diet, and strengthening their community by sharing their bounty with neighbors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 98.2%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: -1,713.8%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -19.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.