Foxcroft Farm Harvest Program

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030364354
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Leicester, VT, USA
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Vocational, Technical Schools

Reported finances

Revenue
$187,609
Expenses
$214,684
Assets
$14,750
Liabilities
$1,849

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PETER LEBENBAUM (PRESIDENT)
  • CHARLIE TATRO (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CATHERINE RAISHART (MEMBER)
  • SHIRLEY MARKLAND (MEMBER)
  • PETER LEBENBAUM (PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support at risk youth

What it reported doing in 2016

Strengthen students academic & social skillsenhance self confidence& instill a sense of community responsibility thru a curriculum that integrates agriculture & learning

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.4%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.6%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -85.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.