Fertile Soils Fund Inc

What it reported doing in 2025

We applied our research-based model at eight program sites (partner farmer fields), totaling 382 acres. Total program expenses include 17,368 for direct fertilizer procurement and 7,200 for design and coordination by our executive director, acting in the capacity of lead scientist and scientific project supervisor (or similar contracted work). Nutrient ratios were calculated to ensure they balanced with the amount of residue from the previous harvest-therefore not polluting-and were converted into microbial biomass and thus deep resistant soil organic carbon (soc). We calculated an addition of 114 tons of soc total added to the program sites (equaling 419 tons of co2 kept from returning to the atmosphere). We also calculated, from information given by our partner farmers and their agronomists that these nutrients were in addition to what the farmer paid to ensure that year's crop yield. Fsf paid for additional fertilizer that our partner farmers couldn't afford and would not have been purchased by them (or by other similar farmers). Our fertilizer purchases led directly to soil building and were not incorporated by plants into grain. We purchased fertilizer directly from local agricultural co-ops and fertilizer supply companies for delivery to our partner farmers, thus ensuring fiscal transparency and providing superior governance over traditional reimbursement programs. Purchase and application of such low-margin commodities preferentially benefits local labor, aiding the rural economies we worked in.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 66.4%; rating input score 66
• Program expense ratio: 95.3%; rating input score 95
• Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Pass
  • 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: 30.3%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 27.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 43.5% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 65.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 156% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings