Foundation for Regeneration

Legal name: Foundation for Regeneration Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
921473069
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Kansas City, MO, US
Phone
2025490851
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$395,567
Expenses
$234,965
Assets
$186,447
Liabilities
$11,848

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BOB BERKEBILE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN WEINBERG (TREASURER): $112,083 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 Foundation for Regeneration is dedicated to creating meaningful demonstrations that showcase the promise of Regeneration.

What it reported doing in 2024

Circular economy - following the identification of the circular economy as a key industry cluster, the foundation for regeneration led a region-wide material flow analysis in collaboration with Kansas city public works, johnson county, and marc. The study assessed waste streams, identified barriers to progress, and revealed a $250 million annual value in landfill-bound materials, which could generate over 5,500 jobs through circular ventures. It also produced detailed sankey diagrams and case studies, highlighting key opportunities for growth. In parallel, ffr partnered with Missouri organic to support its potential to double in size, conducting a full operational audit and delivering a due diligence report. Ffr then helped launch strategic projects to support scalability, including tech upgrades and management systems.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.2%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 91.2%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9,376.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st 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: 40.6%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.79; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 54.2% of revenue deployed · 91.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $214K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.