Regenerative Farms Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
862475402
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Ashfield, MA, USA
Phone
4134750864
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$228,828
Expenses
$283,148
Assets
$250,592
Liabilities
$593

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mary Johnson (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mary Johnson (President): $80,443 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To scale up forest protection and transition to regenerative agriculture by incubating adoption of the Regeneration Hub model. RF fulfills its Mission to catalyze planetary regeneration, empower women & indigenous communities in order to fight climate change, hunger, & poverty.

What it reported doing in 2024

Worked to build capacity of the Hub adoption partners, the leader of farmer training organizatoins/social enterpreneurs who collectively work with more than 65000 farmers located in 9 countries. Incubate adoption of the Regeneration Hub model by providing ongoing technical and leadership training to the implementation field partner organizations and the women and indigenous farmers they work with. Provide insights, tools, training materials and connectionsto leading land regeneration and farming innovations, funders, and experts in farm product processing infrastructure and enterprise development. Provide a curated knowledge sharing network among peer leaders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 64% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.3%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 60.9%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 25.7%; rating input score 26; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 32.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.3% of revenue deployed · 60.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $172K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 26/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.