Farm Alliance of Baltimore Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812974222
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Baltimore, MD, USA
Phone
4435009667
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,245,240
Expenses
$1,200,625
Assets
$1,522,923
Liabilities
$70,329

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DENZEL MITCHELL JR (EXECUTIVE DI): $91,139 total reported compensation
  • SKHER BROWN (FINANCE MGR): $70,231 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The farm alliance of baltimore is a membership organization of urban farms, neighborhood growers, and friends. We use connection, resource sharing, and collective advocacy with respect to food, land and water to expand communities' selfdetermination and power.

What it reported doing in 2024

Black butterfly teaching farm (bbtf): the black butterfly teaching farm served as the organization's production, education, and community engagement hub, demonstrating sustainable urban agriculture while supporting food access and farmer training. During the year, the farm produced more than 21,000 pounds of fresh produce, generated approximately 52,000 in produce sales through distribution partners and market sales, and supplied fresh food to 16 distribution partners, including food banks, community organizations, churches, health systems, and restaurants. The farm also donated over 1,500 pounds of produce to neighbors, engaged more than 200 community members through community events, and provided hands-on learning opportunities for workshops and urban farmer training programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - 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: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.9%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 58.9%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.4%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 36.9% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.9% of revenue deployed · 58.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $708K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.