The Farmhouse Retreat Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
873179543
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Carlisle, MA, USA
Phone
6462289002
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$74,323
Expenses
$108,891
Assets
$717,381
Liabilities
$35,074

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL KRASINSKI (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • PAUL KRASINSKI (PRESIDENT)
  • LYNNE LIPINSKY (TREASURER)
  • KATHY KNIGHT (CLERK)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The organization's mission is to provide a location to engage in educational activities that promote and inspire societal change to focus less on the self and more on serving others, the community, and the greater good through various means, including but not limited to: 1.convening diverse and creative people, using the expertise, and knowledge of all, to work and learn together in one physical space to resolve the world's most pressing problems; 2. Using hands-on group experiences at the organization's farm location to create deep relationships that will inspire positive societal change and foster problem-solving; and 3. Engaging in experiential learning with individuals and families in activities such as community-shared agriculture, aquaculture, renewable energy use, technology development, media production and culinary learning experiences.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, the farmhouse phase 2 solar solution was designed and prepared. This initiative provided a strong learning opportunity for community members to understand how solar can be used to offset current electricity consumption. The phase 2 solar effort would produce 80% of the required energy to power the operations of the facilities and learning spaces at the farmhouse. In addition to the phase 2 energy evaluation and design planning, the team evaluated a much larger scale solar and geothermal initiative that would attempt to power the hydroponic farming operation. This effort, as noted in the farming/agriculture section, contemplated the implementation and execution that would enable the green energy to power a handful of 40' shipping containers, outfitted with hydroponic growing capabilities to geometrically increase the farming operation's production of fresh food. The team and volunteers discovered that an array nearly the size of the back lawn area would be needed to power one container and the probability of getting this through the town process would be quite low. Ultimately, we determined it was better to partner with a local hydroponic grower and evaluate a different site for these future growing opportunities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.4%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 37.8%; rating input score 38
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -46.5%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.59; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -32.5% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.4% of revenue deployed · 37.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $41K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 55/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.