Drylands Agroecology Research Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822651409
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Longmont, CO, USA
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Farmland Preservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,462,754
Expenses
$1,682,586
Assets
$733,767
Liabilities
$402,525

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • James Edwards (Executive Dir.): $96,000 total reported compensation
  • Marissa Pulaski (Director): $86,000 total reported compensation
  • Nicholas DiDomenico Jr (Director): $86,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To restore the earth and our communities through regenerative design.

What it reported doing in 2024

"Advancing agroecological literacy and scientific inquiry through structured programs, events, and written resources for both children and adults. Launched the 10-month Agroecology Incubator Program (AIP), providing hands-on training and career pathways for regenerative farmers and building an educated labor force for DAR in 2025. Launched the 8-month Foundations of Agroecology Course to apprentices, land partners, and the public. Spoke at 12 industry events and wrote a Land Health Encyclopedia to advance the agroecology knowledge base. Planned a multi-year hydrology study to launch in 2025 and applied for over $500k in grants to support the project. Led 8 immersive field trips and served 22 families through our nature-based education programs, fostering deep connections with land, culture, and spirit. Awarded $37,000 in scholarships to make ""Folk Farm"" preschool education accessible, with a fully enrolled Early Childhood Program and a growing waitlist."

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 71.2%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.9%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 35.9% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.4% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.3% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.9% of revenue deployed · 71.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $96K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.