Root Capital Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043478123
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
6176615792
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$21,986,520
Expenses
$25,658,085
Assets
$115,948,053
Liabilities
$63,916,389

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM FOOTE (FOUNDER & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM FOOTE (FOUNDER & CEO): $375,104 total reported compensation
  • JEAN FORRESTER (CONTROLLER/VP INVESTOR RELATION/TREASURER): $264,226 total reported compensation
  • ALICE BURKE (GENERAL COUNSEL): $254,021 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Root capital seeks to increase incomes and stabilize employment for farmers in africa, south-east asia, and latin america. Root capital does this through a proven channel: support for agricultural businesses that collect and market the crops of thousands of farmers. Through a unique combination of capital, training, and access to global markets, root capital helps agricultural businesses increase farmer incomes, empowers women, conserves ecosystems, and creates opportunities for the next generation.

What it reported doing in 2025

Root capital provides agricultural businesses with a unique combination of credit and capacity building. The organization also catalyzes change in the broader sector through evaluation and shared learning. Please refer to the organization's website for further information and statistics on program accomplishments.finance: root capital typically provides loans and lines of credit ranging from $50,000 to $4 million to small and growing businesses, that source from small-holder farmers, with a focuses on those businesses not reached by commercial lenders.most root capital loans can be categorized as follows:1) lines of credit, with tenors of one to three years and are used for working capital to finance the cost of purchasing and processing raw material sourced from smallholder farmers.2) term loans, granted from time to time, with maximum tenors of seven years are provided in connection with the working capital financing to finance certain fixed asset purchases and investments, including equipment, infrastructure improvements, and agricultural inputs. Root capital assesses prospective clients and evaluates them on a series of financial, social, and environmental criteria. Social criteria include prices paid to suppliers, employee wages, and working conditions, and company support for social programs such as training and medical care. Environmental criteria include soil and water management, the impact of the business on the surrounding community, and standards for product handling and processing.root capital's lending supports sustainable environmental practices that protect rural ecosystems. Crops processed and marketed by root capital clients primarily in industries including coffee, cocoa, and certain tree nuts.

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 98% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 75%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.2%; rating input score 83; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: -16.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.52; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 75% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $19.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $375K · 29 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $368K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.