Community Food and Agriculture Coalition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263991288
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Missoula, MT, USA
Phone
4069261625
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,497,465
Expenses
$1,430,034
Assets
$313,087
Liabilities
$225,083

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GRACE BROGAN (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • BONNIE BUCKINGHAM (Executive Dir.): $87,964 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To develop and strengthen missoula county's food system, to promote sustainable agriculture, to build regional self-reliance and to assure all citizens equal access to healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate foods.

What it reported doing in 2024

Food access program - double snap dollars (dsd)cfac works to increase the overall market share of local food by growingopportunities for all montanans to purchase local food, including coordinating the double snap dollars program, produce prescription statewide network, senior farmers market nutrition program, and farmers market development.cfac served nearly 1,800 montanans and recirculated $169,219 to our local farmers, ranchers, and farmers markets through the double snap dollars (dsd) program, doubling benefits for snap recipients at food access sites in 50 locations, and 15 network partners. Cfac served 1793 seniors within 17 Montana communities by providing market coupons that were utilized at 186 farms. 76 network partners contirbuted over 3,500 hours of volunteer service. Cfac developed a network of 8 healthcare facilities and distributed produce prescription incentives dollars to 293 families across Montana.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 89.1%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 58.2%; rating input score 58; 30th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.5%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.72; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.8% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.1% of revenue deployed · 89.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.