Rural Education Action Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223045871
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Montpelier, VT, USA
Phone
8022237222
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$406,321
Expenses
$359,941
Assets
$384,837
Liabilities
$1,460

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SHELBY GIRARD (DEV DIRECTOR): $54,819 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The rural education action project (dba rural Vermont) organizes, educates, and advocates in collaboration with local and global movements to strengthen the social, ecological, and economic health of the agrarian communities that connect us all.

What it reported doing in 2025

Rural Education Action Project remained committed to on-the-ground grassroots organizing of the agricultural community through farm visits, listening sessions, surveying, and ongoing dialogue to gain a better understanding of this communitys evolving needs, and to provide support as we can. We continued to offer a robust schedule of peer-to-peer educational workshops and exchanges that uplifted agroecological practices and celebrated our small-scale farmers. We worked with the agricultural community to advocate for scale-appropriate programs and policies that contribute to a farm and food system that is healthier, more resilient, and viable. We strengthened partnerships and worked collaboratively with organizations and movements at the local, national, and international levels toward our shared goals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. 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: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 66.3%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $29.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: 11.4%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.2%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.3% of revenue deployed · 66.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $239K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $55K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.