Gardens for Health International
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 161772171
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2007
- Location
- Duxbury, MA, United States
- Phone
- +1 857 204 5263
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Agricultural Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $642,983
- Expenses
- $998,515
- Assets
- $1,532,804
- Liabilities
- $112,026
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
People named in this filing
- Emily Morell MD (Director)
- Nicholas Baer (Director)
- Scott Warren (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To tackle the root causes of malnutrition, we work toward a world in which all families and communities have the knowledge, resources, and support to meet their nutritional needs.
What it reported doing in 2024
Farm Program: Gardens for Health Internationals 5-acre demonstration and innovation farm serves as a center for agricultural training and innovation trials while producing agricultural inputs for programs. Gardens for Health International partnered with Regenerosity to position its farm as a center of excellence in regenerative agriculture, expand GHI research capacity and partnerships and build local knowledge and indigenous seed growing. Gardens for Health International also partnered with Mainsprings under the $5,000 grant support from Oppenheimer Foundation to improve the farms activities related to resilience, permaculture gardening, and learning.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 96
- Transparency & Controls: 52
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: $43.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
- 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -55.3%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.54; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 22.6% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $948K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.