Global Garden Refugee Training Farm

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463258261
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Montgomery, IL, USA
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$278,708
Expenses
$309,768
Assets
$224,715
Liabilities
$7,672

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Haley LeRand (Executive Director)
  • Kristen Miodonski (President)
  • Andrew Norrman (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Haley LeRand (Executive Director): $70,000 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 mission of Global Garden Refugee Training Farms is to improve access to fresh vegetables for refugee families and their neighbors, and to reconnect displaced farmers with opportunities to grow healthy food and earn supplemental income.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization creates food security for around 70 displaced refugee farm families who have been resettled in Chicago by providing them with land, water, seeds, tools, and equipment, so they can grow and eat fresh vegetables. They grow many varieties from their countries of origin, which helps preserve healthy eating traditions. They learn about new vegetable crops that are adapted to cold climates and can be incorporated into traditional recipes. We offer healing to farmers who may have been traumatized during displacement. We instill pride in farmers by enabling them to be self-sufficient members of their new community in the United States.

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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 80.4%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -11.1%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.6%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 29.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.4% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 36.5% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.3% of revenue deployed · 80.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $249K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.