Ujamaa Farmer Collective Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
932663227
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Phone
9167096763
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rural Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$754,785
Expenses
$230,445
Assets
$1,667,764
Liabilities
$100

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NATHANIEL BROWN (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • NATHANIEL BROWN (CEO)
  • NELSON HAWKINS (Secretary)
  • KEITH HUDSON (CFO)

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

Carrying out the policy of Californias to support socially disadvantaged farmers through The Farmers Equity Act and with pending state funding, the mission of Ujamaa Farmer Collective Association is empowering historically underserved Black farmers and farmers of color by providing secure land tenure and equitable access to resources, while simultaneously promoting environmentally sound and sustainable agricultural practices.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organizations primary purpose is to acquire land for use by the ujamaa farmer collective in order to support fair and dignified employment for farmer-members engaged in hands-on production, soil health improvement, and sustainable agriculture practices. During the year, the collective received its largest funding from it's fiscal sponsor possibility labs, the regenerative agriculture foundation, and the growing justice fund. The majority of these funds were used directly toward program activities: $52,000 for tractors and attachments, $27,200 for farm equipment repairs, and $60,000 for labor and farmland maintenance. As this was the collectives second year of operations, nearly half of these expenditures were directed toward establishing management structures, administrative systems, depreciable assets, and fundraising capacity necessary to launch and sustain the organizations long-term program implementation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 32
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 91
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 15.3%; rating input score 15
  • Program expense ratio: 50.1%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 69.5%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.24; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 50.9% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -52.4% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 15.3% of revenue deployed · 50.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $115K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 15/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.