Healthy Archuleta Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
872588549
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Pagosa Springs, CO, USA
Phone
4012064579
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$957,528
Expenses
$556,069
Assets
$1,420,030
Liabilities
$8,107

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LISA SCOTT (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GREGORIA LARK (SECRETARY): $3,473 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To drive strategic systems change by engaging community members to advance nurtition security, health equity and greater social belonging.

What it reported doing in 2025

Healthy and local food system - healthy archuleta supports a healthy and local food system through 1) supporting local farmers and producers, including the purchase and distribution of over 20,900 lbs of locally raised ground beef to supply the archuleta food pantry network (a 140% increase over 2024); 2) increasing access to fresh produce for food pantry clients, including over 135 lbs of hydroponically-grown produce and over 475 lbs of community-donated produce; 3) operation of the food distribution center that supports the storage and distribution of local foods, including hydroponic production and donations from backyard and community gardens, and items donated through local food drives hosted by healthy archuleta and partners to the archuleta food pantry network; 4) offering community education opportunities including garden education classes (n=14), local food system education efforts through schools (250 educational hours), youth summer internships (n=3) and community events (growers and producers forums (n=5)) to share information and enhance awareness related to the elements of the food system; 5) addressing food insecurity through facilitating the archuleta county food pantry network and working to increase access to food assistance programs; 6) promoting local food consumption through implementing a healthy and local food system social marketing campaign to encourage residents to choose local foods; and 7) information gathering, analysis, and sharing through the archuleta community food hub planning process to design and develop a community space and local food system infrastructure that supports local food system stakeholders, economic development, and community education. These efforts aim to create a more just, resilient, and sustainable food system that benefits all residents of archuleta county. Expenses: 345,455.08 grants to others: 0 revenue 412,495.43

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% 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 total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.2%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 95.3%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,486.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.9%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.55; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.6%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 32.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 49% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.2% of revenue deployed · 95.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $530K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.