Urban Harvest

Legal name: Urban Harvest Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760501430
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Houston, TX, US
Phone
713.880.5540
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Garden Club, Horticultural Program

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,382,221
Expenses
$1,664,488
Assets
$2,970,284
Liabilities
$53,580

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Beth Clark (President)
  • Sammy Ford (Vice President)
  • Janna Robertson (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Janna Robertson (Executive Director): $176,692 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of Urban Harvest is to be a catalyst in transforming food accessibility in Greater Houston.

What it reported doing in 2025

Urban Harvest's Food Access Program makes fresh, healthy food the easy, affordable choice for all through Double Up Houston, the Mobile Market, and the Saturday Farmers Market. Double Up Houston is Urban Harvest's SNAP incentive program in which food-insecure or low-income individuals can leverage enrollment in federal benefit programs, such as SNAP, WIC, and others, to access fresh fruit and vegetables at farm stands, farmers markets, and Mobile Market sites across Houston. Urban Harvest's Mobile Market partners with clinics, churches, schools, housing organizations, community centers, and other community-based sites to offer farm-fresh produce in low-income, low-access communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.4%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 68.5%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.1%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 49.4% of revenue deployed · 68.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.