Maine Federation of Farmers Markets

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364716128
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Freeport, ME, USA
Phone
2073701524
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,761,673
Expenses
$1,603,682
Assets
$492,817
Liabilities
$129,717

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • James Debiasi (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • James Debiasi (Executive Director): $87,923 total reported compensation
  • Ben Whatley (Director): $340 total reported compensation
  • Lorelei Cimeno (Director): $100 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

MFFM's mission is to cultivate a vibrant, sustainable, farmers' market community as a vital part of Maine's local food network. The federation works with farmers, consumers and communities to make wholesome, locally-grown food available to all residents, and to educate consumers about food resources and to support farm vitality.

What it reported doing in 2024

Market Support & Promotion - MFFM provides services to markets, and on behalf of markets, that help to boost the success and food access goals of farmers' markets in their communities. This includes the Bumper Crop program, a workplace wellness program that helps connect employers and their employees to farmers' markets. This led to over $110,000 in Bumper Crop voucher redemption at farmers' markets across the state. MFFM also provides fiscal agency support to markets, hosting their central payment terminals to accept SNAP and credit cards, and then reimbursing vendors directly. These services ease the burden on market organizers, who are often volunteers, and boost our mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.5%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 35.8% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.5% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.5% of revenue deployed · 92.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.