Field to Market

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900885216
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025408023
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,335,770
Expenses
$6,104,603
Assets
$2,669,678
Liabilities
$1,675,964

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELSEY BILLINGS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SCOTT HERNDON (PRESIDENT - UNTIL 05/2024)
  • CARRIE VOLLMER-SANDERS (PRESIDENT - AS OF 08/2024)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL JONATHAN HISHMEH (VP, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY): $226,607 total reported compensation
  • KELSEY BILLINGS (VICE PRESIDENT): $187,645 total reported compensation
  • ERIC CORONEL (DIRECTOR,SCIENCE AND RESEARCH): $177,230 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 meet the agricultural challenge of the 21st century by providing collaborative leadership that is transparent; grounded in science; focused on outcomes; open to the full range of technology choices; and committed to creating opportunities across the agricultural supply chain for continuous improvements in productivity, environmental quality, and human well-being.

What it reported doing in 2024

Partnership for climate smart commodities: the innovative finance initiative successfully enrolled more than 350 farmers across more than 175,000 acres in climate-smart agricultural practices including tillage management, nutrient management, and cover crops through seven implementation projects spanning multiple states. Field to market coordinated monthly partner meetings, developed data management tools, and improved science-based metrics to support ghg quantification. The program generated strong farmer interest and engagement, with implementation partners providing financial incentives, crop warranties, and technical assistance to support farmers and reduce risks associated with sustainable practice adoption.

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 62% for direct work, and 38% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 44th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -14.4%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $5.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $227K · 20 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $649K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.