Plant It Forward

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273967754
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,866,988
Expenses
$1,308,620
Assets
$1,071,748
Liabilities
$313,739

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Nijhor Rahman (ECO): $13,892 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To empower refugees to develop sustainable farming businesses that produce fresh healthy food for our community. We operate three key program areas: farmer education, farm services, and enterprise programs.

What it reported doing in 2023

We provide business and agricultural training to a network of over 60 growers in the houston region. Training includes individualized coaching, provision of workshops and demonstrations, and scholarship opportunities which enable network farmers to participate in state-wide professional development opportunities like conferences. Urban farming program (formally known as farm services program): we believe urban farms are an essential component of houstons landscape. We support urban farms by managing four urban sites, which are leased to 8 farming entities. In addition to funding shared site services and essential equipment for farmers, we link the community to these farms so they can experience their food firsthand and meet their farmers through hands-on volunteer work days and other community engagement events.

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 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: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.4%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 84.7%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $36.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 29.9%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.1%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.4% of revenue deployed · 84.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $14K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.