Honore Farm and Mill

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814325307
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Larkspur, CA, USA
Phone
4153425555
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$318,960
Expenses
$216,663
Assets
$346,891
Liabilities
$41,012

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Elizabeth DeRuff (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Elizabeth DeRuff (Executive Director): $50,004 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Honore Farm and Mill is dedicated to restoring and strengthening the relationship between people and the land through regenerative farming practices the cultivation of heritage grains and experiential education. Our mission is to serve every California student food made with locally grown whole grains.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education - Honore Farm and Mills mission is to create a connection between our locally grown and stone milled whole grain and our food system through education and awareness. Honore Farm and Mill provides hands-on planting and harvesting education on our partner farm plots. To extend this education outside of the farm we collaborate with California School Food Authority Staff Garden educators and teachers to provide hands-on education using a mobile-mill and a developed curriculum to plant tend harvest thresh winnow and mill wheat. Additionally we are working alongside California school district Food and Nutrition Services staff to develop recipes that can be used in school cafeterias to nourish thousands of students with delicious nutrient-dense whole grains.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 14
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 4.1%; rating input score 4
  • Program expense ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 6
  • Fundraising efficiency: $118.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: 75%; rating input score 75; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.1%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.6; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 30.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 4.1% of revenue deployed · 6.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $13K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 41 current checks pass · 9 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 4/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.