Regenerative Agriculture Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
844278182
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6122035648
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,184,284
Expenses
$5,128,088
Assets
$8,428,453
Liabilities
$338,138

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK MULLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER O'CONNOR (DIRECTOR, FUNDERS FOR REGE): $187,053 total reported compensation
  • MARK MULLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $160,785 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN IRBY (MANAGING DIRECTOR, FUNDERS): $149,579 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 the regenerative agriculture foundation is to foster the economic, policy, and knowledge conditions that support land stewardship, provide climate solutions, protect freshwater and oceans, advance a just economy, support thriving rural communities, and sustain diverse human and ecological life.

What it reported doing in 2024

This program includes our farm bill grassroots capacity building project, a collaboration between raf, national sustainable agriculture coalition, and rafi-USA, initially launched with generous support from waverley street foundation. While having a focus on advancing agricultural policies that address conservation and social disparities, this effort takes a broad perspective in supporting policy organizing, and includes several funds governed by peer and participatory processes. To date, 86 organizations have received rapid response policy engagement grants. An additional 41 organizations have received climate and equity policy project grants. Both processes are peer-led and participatory, with facilitative leadership provided by raf and rafi respectively.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.4%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $488.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 24.9%; rating input score 25; 9th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54.1%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.64; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.3%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.3% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 46% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.4% of revenue deployed · 87.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $187K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.