Twin Peaks Organic Food Hub
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 332777477
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Newcastle, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9162201899
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $17,475
- Expenses
- $13,536
- Assets
- $6,907
- Liabilities
- $2,968
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
People named in this filing
- Justin Miller (Business managment & Accounting)
- Camelia Miller (Procurement, Marketing & Logistics)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Assist and mentor small, new, and disadvantaged farmers with marketing, business structure, food safety, regulatory requirements, and mentorship from established farmers and farm operations that provide real world know how.
What it reported doing in 2025
We provided mentorship to 7 farms. We hosted soil health and farming training in conjuction with universities and government agencies. We also hosted school learning tours and government officials as we advocated for small, new, and socially disadvantaged farmers. We partnered with other non-profit organizations in these endeavors
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 65% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 22.5%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 73.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $52K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.