Susu Community Farm Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
874165704
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Newfane, VT, USA
Phone
8022758723
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$667,649
Expenses
$1,026,146
Assets
$1,137,838
Liabilities
$49,358

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • AMBER ARNOLD (AUTHORIZED TAX OFFICER): $110,400 total reported compensation
  • NAOMI DEYOE (FORMER OFFICER): $107,250 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Susu community farm is an afroindigenous stewarded farm in southern Vermont. We offer life affirming spaces for black, indigenous, people of color to thrive, including through the donation of food and offering of educational programming.

What it reported doing in 2025

See schedule obox of resilience csa - the box of resilience csa provided 35 shares of locally grown, culturally relevant african and disporic produce each week from june to october. These shares reached nearly 100 families from global majority in windham county, Vermont and were distributed at no cost. Over 18 weeks, this totaled 630 boxes of food, including fresh produce, medicinal herbs, and kitchen staples like eggs and bread. The program addresses food insecurity while strengthening connections to culturally significant foods and supporting community health and wellness. In alignment with susu's values of community and solidarity, the csa program also sourced food from local farms and producers, ensuring each share was diverse and community-rooted. This approach contributed to a solidarity economy and strengthened relationships with local farmers and food growers.the program was supported by expanded farm infrastructure. A new half-acre of growing space increased production capacity to meet rising demand. Irrigation systems were installed to ensure consistent watering despite fluctuating weather conditions.a central focus was restoring and enriching soil health by bringing fallow fields back into production using regenerative agricultural practices. Additional land stewardship included removing dead trees that posed risks to gardens and buildings, helping protect the farm's infrastructure and long-term sustainability.overall, the box of resilience csa expended food access while advancing community health, wellness, and food sovereignty through a comprehensive, land-based approach to food justice.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.2%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 53.3%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -53.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -44.9% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.2% of revenue deployed · 53.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $547K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.