Friends of Deer Hollow Farm

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770373776
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Mountain View, CA, USA
Phone
4082055305
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$209,091
Expenses
$218,584
Assets
$568,340
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lubab Sheet-Davis (President)
  • Sherrie Gutierrez (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Lubab Sheet-Davis (President)
  • Sherrie Gutierrez (Vice President)
  • JoAnn Davis (Treasurer)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Friends of Deer Hollow Farm is a volunteer, non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation founded in 1994 to help preserve Deer Hollow Farm, a working homestead farm and environmental education center in Silicon Valley. Their mission is to preserve Deer Hollow Farm, a historical area and working farm, and support the Farm's environmental education program for the benefit of schools and the community by raising funds through donations, grants, and public events.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided scholarships to public schools if at least 20% of the students are eligible for the federal lunch program. This allowed children from low-income elementary schools to attend environmental classes by paying the class fees and the bus transportation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.8%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 85.5%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $53.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 42.9%; rating input score 43; 41st 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.5%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.6; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 31.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.8% of revenue deployed · 85.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $187K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.