Regenesis Institute for Regenerative Practice

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
831167584
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Santa Fe, NM, USA
Phone
5054906021
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Reported finances

Revenue
$803,294
Expenses
$650,890
Assets
$176,081
Liabilities
$31,444

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ADAM RUBEL (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHANNON MURPHY (EXECUTIVE DI): $77,016 total reported compensation
  • PAMELA MANG (VICE PRESIDE): $1,949 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 provide education pathways for regenerative practitioners, as a means to grow the field of regenerative work both globally and locally in communities around the world.

What it reported doing in 2024

The institute's flagship educational program is called the regenerative practitioner program, which supports working practitioners who wish to integrate regenerative development into their practice with a long-term personal and professional development path, while nourishing the development of communities of regenerative practice in places around the world. This program works simultaneously on developing the capacity of individual practitioners while growing localized support systems for this practice.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 74% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.9%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $29.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th 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: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.9% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $618K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $77K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.