Fresno Food Commons Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464357998
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Fresno, CA, USA
Phone
5598591763
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$917,011
Expenses
$832,376
Assets
$816,199
Liabilities
$308,297

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JIM COCHRAN (DIRECTOR)
  • BLONG LEE (SECRETARY/TR)
  • LUPE MARTINEZ (DIRECTOR)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Fresno food commons trust was founded to (1) provide assistance to disadvantaged farmworkers and food system workers; (2) to educate the public about sustainable agricultural and food system; (3) preserve farmland pursuant to federal, state and local government conservation policy in the fresno region.

What it reported doing in 2019

Food commons fresno is growing a community food system that fosters health, stewardship, equity, and economic development. This system includes farm production, processing, distribution, and retail sales in fresno and the surrounding san joaquin valley. Broad-based community participation is a core value of the food commons. Food commons fresno assets will be stewarded for the benefit of the community by the nonprofit food commons fresno trust. Business development will be accelerated by collaboration and partnership with existing local food and farming enterprises.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.

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: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.8%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 43.9%; rating input score 44
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.2%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 32.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.4% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.8% of revenue deployed · 43.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $365K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes related organizations
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.