Urban Agriculture Cooperative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821079237
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Newark, NJ, USA
Phone
9082087244
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,740,933
Expenses
$1,694,515
Assets
$303,204
Liabilities
$59,667

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EMILIO S PANASCI (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LORRAINE GIBBONS (Director): $100,000 total reported compensation
  • EMILIO S PANASCI (CEO): $63,692 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of the Urban Agricultural Cooperative is to provide urban farmers with technical assistance on how to grow and market nutritional organic produce. The Organization also recruits and helps new urban farmers to locate areas to set up their farms, provide technical assistance, provide supplies and tools where needed and to monitor their progress.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2022, Urban Agriculture Cooperative supported over thirty (30) Farmer's Markets as well as a variety of wholesle orders of locally grown fruits, vegetables, herbs and flowers. We also consulted with various urban farmers to improve their businesses. In total we sold $149,000 of grown produce to community schools, non-proit organizations, residents and food pantries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 5
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.7%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 47.2% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 44.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 38.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.