The industrial food system has been criticized for playing a major role in the deteriorating health of people and the environment (Patel 2012; De Schutter 2010). Critics attribute these effects to the drive for profit in a competitive market system (McMichael 2009; Guthman 2004; Magdoff et al. 2000). Nevertheless, several hundred farms in the United States are organized and governed as nonprofits. Nonprofits function to fulfill a specified value-based goal or “mission” rather than to maximize profit for firm owners or shareholders (Renz et al. 2022). This paper is the second in a series of analyses of nonprofit food organizations. The goal of these analyses is to determine whether this “alternative mode of governance” (DuPuis and Christian 2023; Bulkeley and Newell 2015; DuPuis and Gillon 2009) might represent an “alternative economic practice” (Rosol 2020), set apart from the profit-maximizing food system.

We begin this exploration by arguing that nonprofit farms are an important alternative mode of governance and economic practice worthy of study. We look at nonprofit farms both as nonprofits and as farms. As nonprofits, we explore the extent to which these farms are meeting their mission. Next, we focus on these farms as farms. To answer both questions, we look at the location of these farms in terms of how, through their nonprofit mission, they fulfill local needs and how, as farms, they contribute to local food system infrastructure (LFSI) (DuPuis et al. 2022). To answer these questions, we created a nationwide database of nonprofit farms to analyze their funding and county location in relationship to other characteristics of that location. Looking at their mission statements, we ask whether they are in places that have the greatest need. Finally, we focus on the proportion of nonprofit farms that have food system transformation as part of their mission. While we cannot make claims of causality, for reasons listed in our methods section, we do believe that exploring the location of nonprofit farms in relationship to local need and local food system clustering provides useful information about the potential role of nonprofits as an alternative mode of governance.

Through this analysis, we show that most nonprofit farms are in highly populated, higher income urban, suburban, and peri-urban areas (RU1-3). Even though these farms grow food, only about half of the nonprofit farms identified have a specific food-related mission. Of these food mission farms, approximately half have a mission to increase access to healthy food and to reduce food insecurity. The other nonprofit farms have a specific focus on transforming the food system and, in some cases, increasing food justice. Although some farm missions may not explicitly address food system change, their role in the shortening of food supply chains, we posit, contributes to the transformation of local food infrastructure by fulfilling local health and equity goals (See, for example, Dowler et al. 2009; Hendrickson and Heffernan 2002); and help to meet food supply resiliency goals.

We also find that nonprofit farms in general, even those with a focus on food insecurity, tend not to be in the regions with the greatest need (e.g., places with the least food access). This does not necessarily mean that they fail to serve their mission. However, our analysis indicates that the places in most need of the services provided by nonprofit farms tend not to have these farms. The exception are nonprofit farms that concentrate on food justice, which are more likely to be in areas with greater economic need and greater percentages of people of color.

In terms of their presence, we find that nonprofit farms, no matter their mission, tend to be in places with strong LFSI, which would indicate that even farms without a transformation mission play a part in support of alternative food networks (AFNs). We find that LFSI tends to cluster in places with certain characteristics and that nonprofit farms contribute to that clustering. This finding suggests that in crafting food policy and in food advocacy, we ought to pay more attention to the role that these farms may play in building LFSI.

Our findings lead us to conclude that nonprofit farms, while providing an alternative mode of governance that fills social needs, cannot fill the gap between government services and the industrial food system. While functioning as alternative forms of economic practice outside of the industrial commodity chains, nonprofit farms are still, like nonprofits as a whole, dependent on external resources that are unequally distributed (Anheier 2014) and cannot be expected to repair the failures of the current food system to provide healthy and accessible food for all.

Nonprofit farms as social infrastructure

Building on the conceptual foundations of “social embeddedness” as established by Robert Putnam (2000) and Karl Polanyi (2001), recent studies of mutual aid for resilience in cities and regions posit that societies thrive in places with strong social relationships (networks) of mutual support, scaffolded by social institutions (infrastructure) that provide services and work to strengthen those relationships (Klinenberg et al. 2020; Aldrich and Meyer 2015). These studies echo decades of work on rural social capital (Flora and Flora 1993) and, more specifically, the social infrastructure of alternative/sustainable/local food networks/systems (Lyson 2004; Jarosz 2008; Hinrichs 2013; Goodman et al. 2012). Those who study local food systems as alternative economies argue that they temper “productivist logics” (Rosol 2020; Watts et al. 2005; Goodman, et al. 2012; Hendrickson and Heffernan 2002; Hendrickson 2015; Allen et al. 2003) by creating alternative networks (Renting et al. 2003; Goodman et al. 2012; Holt Giménez and Shattuck 2011) that are more “decommodified” (Goodman and Goodman 2009; Hinrichs 2000), “relational” (Verfuerth et al. 2023), “communified” (Warde 1997), and “nourishing” (Whatmore and Thorne 1997). More recently, scholars have examined how local food systems can make communities more resilient in a disaster or pandemic (Wallace Center 2021; Thilmany et al. 2021).

Scholars of resilience and mutual aid note that these social qualities are situated in place-based infrastructures and organizations such as libraries, parks, and community centers (Klinenberg 2018). Local food systems are another form of social infrastructure, in which people in alternative networks build the infrastructure of local food systems. The study of alternative economies emphasize Polanyian forms of market social embeddedness (Granovetter 1973) that are “sources of resistance against the homogenizing effects of “‘placeless,’ globalized, industrial modes of food provisioning” (Goodman et al. 2012 17). Short food chains, it is argued, build networks of mutual trust that form the foundation of an alternative economic practice (Rosol 2020). However, AFNs also depend on market exchange, which leads some to argue that alternative food systems are still “conventionalized” through their dependence on processes of valorization and economic rent (Guthman 2004). In response, others point toward unrecognized forms of non-market exchange that form the basis of some AFNs (Rosol 2020).

What these discussions do not acknowledge is that nonprofit food and farm organizations are a mode of non-market governance. Surprisingly, three decades of academic research on the relationship between AFNs and markets has yet to examine nonprofit food organizations as an alternative, non-market, mode of governance that contributes to the “normative landscape” (Goodman et al. 2012) of local food systems. We therefore expand on DuPuis and Christian’s (2023) previous work to further explore the potential of nonprofit organizations as an alternative mode of food governance (Bulkeley and Newell 2015; DuPuis and Gillon 2009). We investigate whether nonprofits produce food in ways that depend upon social embeddedness (Granovetter 1973; Polanyi 2001 [1944]) and fulfill the ideas of local food systems as being more “values-based” (Nemes et al. 2023), “civic” (Lyson 2004) and/or “just” (DuPuis et al. 2011). We hope that a focus on nonprofit farms contributes to a deeper understanding of the potential role that this alternative mode of food governance might play at the local level (DuPuis and Gillon 2009; Lyson 2004; Hinrichs 2013; Hinrichs and Lyson 2007; Renting et al. 2003). While several studies note the nonprofit status of specific local food system organizations, including food hubs (Hinrichs 2013), food cooperatives (Moragues-Faus et al. 2020), farm-to-institution organizations (Richman et al. 2019), and food policy alliances (Sussman and Bassarab 2017), our nationwide study explores the characteristics of nonprofit farms, their mission, and their potential role as non-market actors in food system transformation. To this end, we also examine their relationship to LFSI.

Local food scholars have drawn upon the ideas of alternative economies to examine how local food systems emerge, persist, and “scale up” (Beckie et al. 2012). Beginning with the work by Allen et al. (2003), researchers have examined the role of food “initiatives,” generally defined as the organizations built by social movements to transform the food system. As these scholars have noted, not all local food organizations are necessarily centered on food system transformation; some, for instance, are more traditional food charities (e.g., food pantries, food banks). However, food initiatives, either transformative or charitable, are organized to accomplish a goal – a mission – beyond simply making a profit, thereby fitting into the definition of “values-based territorial food networks,” meaning that clusters of these organizations bring together geography, social embeddedness, and normative action (Nemes et al. 2023; Misleh 2022).

Food movement actors in the United States and elsewhere have worked through AFNs to transform the food system, or through food justice groups that have sought to empower previously marginalized communities (Penniman 2018). Previous research assessed the ability of local food systems to meet food movement goals such as the provision of just, fair, healthy, and sustainable foods (Kloppenburg et al. 1996); as well as the revitalization of rural communities (Hendrickson and Heffernan 2002; Sonnino et al. 2016) and the realization of greater local economic democracy (Moragues-Faus et al. 2020; Whatmore et al. 2003). Some of this research has problematized whether local food systems have met these goals, critiquing food re-localization as an idealized and impractical “local trap” (Born and Purcell 2006) or a niche that overestimates the potential benefits that LFSI can offer as a “fix” for food systems (Hinrichs 2016; DeLind 2002; DuPuis and Goodman 2005). Some critics argue that economic pressures force farmers in local and alternative food systems to be ruled by profit-maximization (Guthman 2004). In contrast, others have argued that local for-profit farms and farmers are part of the “food movement” and the alternative food sector; their operations are guided as much as a commitment to local food systems as to their own personal profit (Haedicke 2016). In the light of these critiques, some argue for a more reflexive approach, evaluating local food systems as alternative economies embedded in social networks (Nemes et al. 2023). Social movement actors attempt to transform food systems through building clusters of organizations – LFSI – that create the “social infrastructure” into which alternative food networks are institutionally embedded (DuPuis et al. 2022).

In accordance with this reflexive approach, we seek to better understand whether nonprofit organizations can contribute to the transformation of the food system by providing an “alternative mode of governance” (DuPuis and Gillon 2009). We conducted an exploratory analysis to examine the potential role of nonprofit farms both in terms of their contribution to LFSI and, secondly, their potential to meet a variety of “values-based” missions. To this end, we constructed the first known national database of nonprofit farms linked to the characteristics of the counties in which they are located, including the presence of LFSI entities and measures of social need. We examined these data to describe the characteristics of nonprofit farm types and to understand whether these entities might strengthen LFSI, provide greater food justice and equity, and meet food access needs.

We found that nonprofit farms, as farms, are members of strongly clustered LFSI. Counties that contain nonprofit farms have more infrastructure such as farmers markets and CSAs. While not dependent on profit maximization, nonprofit farms as nonprofits are still dependent on local economic resources. That is, they tend to be in places with the highest number of likely consumers and donors, and in places with greater wealth. For this reason, we argue that nonprofit farms cannot fill the gaps between the industrial and state food provisioning systems, nor between market dependent local food economies and an ideal “values-based” food sector.

What is a nonprofit farm?

A nonprofit is “a group organized for purposes other than generating profit and in which no part of the organization’s income is distributed to its members, directors, or officers” (Renz et al. 2022; Cornell Law School 2023) that is organized under the 501(c)(3) “public charities” section of the tax code. According to the National Association of Nonprofits, these organizations are the “building blocks of democracy…where Americans come together to solve problems” (National Council of Nonprofits 2019). Nonprofit organizations are legally obligated to operate on behalf of a charitable mission and they are tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. To obtain and maintain tax exemption, these organizations are required to be organized and operated for one or more of the exempt purposes set forth in Section 501(c)(3), which are “charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.” Boris et al. (2017:3) describes the role of nonprofits in civil society as “fostering community engagement, and promoting and conserving civic, cultural and religious values.”

We defined a nonprofit farm as any 501(c)(3) exempt nonprofit organization, no matter what mission, that grew food as a primary aspect of their organizational activity. Our database does not include community gardens where land is made available to others to grow food. Instead, the farms in this study grow food directly on land that is owned, donated, or rented and provide or sell this food to others. Interestingly, farming local food does not, alone, qualify as an exempt purpose under Section 501(c)(3).

Nonprofits can sell goods or services but are also funded by contributions and grants. Most nonprofits are directed by a board, many of whom tend to be major donors to the organization. Local nonprofits tend to have boards filled typically by local people, who also tend to be donors. Because they are run by a board that is mandated to fulfill the organization’s mission, and they are primarily funded by grants and donations rather than profit, we define nonprofit farms as an alternative “mode of governance” (Bulkeley and Newell 2015; Andrée et al. 2019; Hospes and Brons 2016; DuPuis and Gillon 2009).

Our work examines nonprofit farms in two ways. First, we look at these farms as nonprofit organizations. The larger goal is to explore whether this alternative mode of governance has the potential to overcome the productivist logics of industrial agriculture and to provide healthier and more ecologically-grown food (Rosol 2020; Watts et al. 2005; Renting et al. 2003). However, as we will show, nonprofit farms, like most nonprofits, are “resource dependent” (Anheier 2014), that is, their governance structure is heavily dependent on their source of funding, which restricts their ability to meet local food system needs, especially in low-income rural counties. Drawing on the USDA Food Environment Atlas, we define need in terms of poverty, income, food access and other variables that we describe below. Second, our analysis looks at nonprofit farms as farms. Most analyses of local food system resilience are based on case studies as, indeed, have most analyses of the benefits of local food systems. Our study, on the other hand, is nationwide and provides evidence of the clustered relationship between nonprofit farms and other local food system actors. Because of supply-chain disruptions, local food systems have received renewed attention from scholars who have examined their role in increasing the resilience of food supply chains (Wallace Center 2021; Thilmany et al. 2021; Sanderson 2020; Moragues-Faus et al. 2020). Regardless of their mission, our analysis shows that nonprofit farms tend to be part of dense clusters of LFSI that contribute to local food resilience. These clusters tend to be in urban communities, but not all urban communities contain these clusters.

Methods

To answer our questions about the role of nonprofit farms as both nonprofits and as farms, we created two datasets; one on nonprofit farm characteristics and another on the social, natural and economic characteristics of the environment in which they are located. To understand their role as nonprofits, we analyzed the database to ascertain the characteristics of the counties in terms of the stated mission of these farms. In particular, we explored the extent to which the farms were located in places of the greatest need. We defined need in relation to the relevant mission. For instance, in the case of Food Justice (Table 1), we focused on race in terms of food access and poverty. In addition, we explored the role of nonprofit farms as farms in terms of their contribution to LFSI, defined as whether they tend to be clustered with other food organizations.

Table 1 Mission Types. Classification scheme used to identify the core mission of each nonprofit farm
Full size table

Nonprofit farm missions

To understand the characteristics of nonprofit farms, we compiled a nationwide database that started with the list developed by DuPuis and Christian (2023). Their preexisting list (n = 295) was developed using GuideStar (2022), an online catalog of nonprofit organizations. We augmented the list with a detailed search of Cause IQ (2024), another online source of nonprofits. This second search was conducted between May and July 2023. A limitation that we faced was that some nonprofit farms do not use “farm” in their title and some organizations that call themselves “farms” do not produce food (e.g., wedding venues, summer camps).

Cause IQ (2024) permitted a variety of keyword searches, as well as a means for sorting by characteristics such as organizational type, issue focus, location, and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) code. These functions permitted us to refine our search with each pass and to exclude organizations that do not produce food such as convention and visitors bureaus, disease research fundraisers, fraternal societies, professional associations, public utilities, real estate organizations, research centers, and unions, as well as food banks, Farm Bureaus, fairs and festivals, certifiers (e.g., organic), community gardens,Footnote 1 research farms, and organizations that had their tax-exempt status revoked. To further capture social justice farms, we did a targeted online search for Black, Asian, Latino, and LGBTQ + nonprofit farms. These new data sources yielded an additional group (n = 105) that included smaller nonprofit farms that were not identified using GuideStar (2022).

The updated nonprofit farm database (n = 400) includes each organization’s mailing address, county, and available financial data. We used Cause IQ (2024) to collect the financial data for the entire sample, 90% of which were from the 2021 and 2022 reporting years. Cause IQ (2024) obtains these data from the 990 tax forms submitted to the IRS. There are three types. Organizations that normally have gross receipts of less than $50,000 file a 990-N (i.e., e-postcard), which simply requests contact information and revenue confirmation. Form 990-EZ is filed by organizations with gross receipts of more than $50,000, but less than $200,000 and with assets of less than $500,000. Organizations that exceed these amounts use a 990 form. These latter two forms—990 and 990-EZ—request more extensive revenue reporting than the e-postcard including the contributions and grants that the organization received.

A review of each nonprofit farm website (or Facebook page when not available) was conducted to confirm that it met the criteria for inclusion, and to classify the core objective of their mission (Table 1). Our goal was to determine how each nonprofit farm envisioned their role in the agrifood system. We started with DuPuis and Christian’s (2023) classification scheme and expanded the number of categories to capture the nuances of the mission statements more fully. Both authors and research assistants conducted multiple rounds of assessment to reach an agreement on the criteria for each mission type and to access the accurate application of the classification scheme. Inconsistencies were discussed until agreement reached and adjustments were made accordingly.

County characteristics

To understand where nonprofit farms are located and whether they might contribute toward LFSI, food justice, and food security, we created a second database with county-level characteristics. This dataset started with the most recent USDA Food Environment Atlas, which includes data on food access and proximity to a grocery store, use of food assistance, availability of local foods, and sociodemographics. Added to the database were the 2013 Rural–Urban Continuum Codes from the Office of Management and Budget (Economic Research Service 2021)Footnote 2 and the 1999 Natural Amenities Scale (McGranahan 2019). Following DuPuis and Christian (2023), we also added the National Geographic’s regional classification scheme (National Geographic Society 2009). Lastly, county-level presidential election results for 2020 were obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab (2024). Together, these data permit us to assess and describe where these farms exist, to what extent they exist in more rural or urban places, and whether they are in places with a well-developed LFSI or in places where food justice and security might be of greater concern.

Limitations

While we draw on the most recent data available, there are several notable limitations. Farms that were part of larger nonprofit organizations (e.g., food banks) could not be included in our database because it was not possible to separate the farm data from the larger organization. In addition, only farms with annual revenue over $50,000 are required to report income to the IRS. Some very small nonprofits reported at least some revenue, but it is not possible to know if the data reported was complete (see Tables 2 and 5, below).

Table 2 Size of Contributions and Grants Received. Nonprofit farms reporting contributions and grants by revenue size
Full size table

With respect to the Atlas, we used the most current file available (updated September 2020); there may be newer data elsewhere among the various USDA agencies that has yet to be integrated. Because the Atlas comes from multiple sources, some data were collected in different years, and some counties and variables have incomplete data. The Natural Amenities Scale is quite old and excludes the states of Alaska and Hawaii, and the states of Texas, Colorado, and North Carolina have sizable gaps in data. In short, these limitations hamper our ability to conduct statistical tests. Regardless, the data complied are rich and they allow us to take the first steps toward understanding whether nonprofit governance is a viable means for filling government and market gaps associated with the agrifood system.

Findings

To address our questions about the characteristics and spatial attributes of nonprofit farms we begin by examining their size, funding, and location. Next, we focus on the sociodemographics and LFSI of the counties that have at least one nonprofit farm. The last section reexamines the farms by core mission; it is separated into nonfood-based missions (i.e., Social Welfare, Preservation, Connector) and food-based missions (i.e., Food Security, Transformation, Food Justice, AFN).

Characteristics of nonprofit farms

Nonprofits vary in size and funding sources; most rely heavily on contributions, but grant awards are more common among the larger farms. Nonprofit farms are scattered across the country, but they are concentrated in metro areas. There are sections of the West and upper Midwest, which are predominately rural, where no nonprofit farms were identified, even in the more urban areas. One consequence is that the sociodemographics of the counties with nonprofit farms and those without these farms differ.

Size and funding

Most of the nonprofit farms in our database (96.8 percent, n = 387) reported at least some revenue, the majority of which was for the 2021 and 2022 tax years. Of these farms, nearly 51 percent (n = 203) were below $350,000 a year, indicating that they were relatively small operations. As mentioned above, the IRS does not require nonprofits making less than $50,000 a year to submit a detailed 990 tax form. However, nonprofit boards or donors may require organizations to submit said information to the IRS. More than 11 percent (n = 45) of the farms in our database had a revenue of less than $50,000, of which 82.2 percent (n = 37) received some form of contribution; only two of these very small farms received grants. In contrast, of the 167 nonprofit farms that received grants, 78.4 percent (n = 131) had revenues of at least $350,000 (Table 2).

As Table 2 shows, many nonprofit farms are quite large in terms of total revenue. In fact, more than 22 percent (n = 89) of the nonprofit farms reported over $1 million dollars and of these farms, nearly 70 percent (n = 62) received more than a $1 million in contributions and over 10 percent (n = 7) received more than $1 million in grants. It is likely that there are multiple reasons for these high revenue nonprofit farms. First, it may have to do with the nature of nonprofit governance; nonprofit farms are dependent on donations and therefore tend to be in higher-income areas that are more likely to have the charitable resources to give (Urban Institute 2012). Nearly half of all nonprofit farms with more than $1 million in revenue were in the Northeast.

Location

Of the 3,143 FIPS coded areas in the United States, 33.7 percent (n = 1,167) are in urban (RU1) and sub/peri-urban (RU2-3) counties. Nonprofit farms tend to be clustered in these areas. Overall, 16.6 percent (n = 194) of metro counties have at least one nonprofit farm. In total, there are only 256 counties with at least one nonprofit farm, and only 24.2 percent (n = 62) are nonmetro. This is not surprising given that dense populations have a larger demand for food. However, these farms do not exist in all counties with large, urban populations. Figure 1 shows that nonprofit farms are restricted to certain major metropolitan areas on the East and West Coast, as well as Hawaii. The map also shows the largest clusters of nonprofit farms are around Boston, the Bay Area, and the Hudson Valley. However, 71.5 percent of counties with a nonprofit farm have only one of these farms. Despite their small numbers (n = 400) overall, nonprofit farms are regionally clustered in the Northeast (n = 141, 35.3 percent) and the West (n = 95, 23.8 percent), with the remaining in the Southeast (n = 75, 18.8 percent) and Midwest (n = 66, 16.5 percent), and least found in the Southwest (n = 23 5.8 percent).Footnote 3

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location of Nonprofit Farms. All nonprofit farms identified (n = 400) by county (Cause IQ 2024; GuideStar 2022)

Full size image

Characteristics of counties with nonprofit farms

Data show that the counties with a nonprofit farm differ from those without a nonprofit farm (Table 3). Counties with nonprofit farms have larger populations, greater racial diversity, are more likely to vote Democratic, and have higher levels of education and income. These countries also have lower poverty rates and higher levels of food security. Thus, fewer students in these counties are eligible for free and reduced lunch, and fewer residents use SNAP benefits. Counties with nonprofit farms also tend to have fewer residents with low access to food stores. Moreover, of the 353 counties identified as having persistent poverty (cf., Benson et al. 2023), only 3.7 percent (n = 13) have a nonprofit farm. Nearly half of these persistent poverty counties are in very large metropolitan areas (RU1) and they are home to 66.7 percent (n = 16) of the nonprofits in persistent poverty counties–Kings, NY (n = 6), Philadelphia, PA (n = 6), New Orleans, LA (n = 2), Baltimore, MD (n = 1), and St. Louis, MO (n = 1).

Table 3 Sociodemographics of Counties with Non-Profit Farms. Characteristics of counties with at least one Nonprofit Farm (NPF) and counties without nonprofit farms
Full size table

Counties with at least one nonprofit farm also had higher levels of LFSI, with higher numbers of Community Supported Agriculture farms, farmers markets, farm-to-school programs, food banks and food hubs (Table 4). Nonprofit farms also tend to be in counties that have more farms that sell directly to the public, as well as higher direct farm sales overall, and more agritourism.

Table 4 County-Level Local Food System Infrastructure. Entities that contribute toward local food system infrastructure (LFSI) and other local food entities in counties with at least one nonprofit farm (NPF) and counties without nonprofit farms
Full size table

Nonprofit farms are clustered with other LFSI organizations; only two farms are in a county without another LFSI. The average number of LFSI organizations in counties with nonprofit farms is four times greater than counties with no nonprofit farms (24 vs 6 organizations). Thus, nonprofit farms appear to be strongly clustered with LFSI. It should be noted, however, that LFSI organizations are more ubiquitous than nonprofit farms. In fact, 88.5 percent of counties without a nonprofit farm have at least one LFSI and 71.3 percent of all LFSI organizations are in counties without a nonprofit farm.

The missions of nonprofit farms

Nonprofit farms have a wide variety of missions (Fig. 2), not all of which center on transforming the food system or even on food itself. Nearly two thirds of all nonprofit farms focus on food as the primary objective in their mission statement whereas the rest reported a mission not specifically related to food. Of the farms with a food-based mission, nearly half are either AFN or Food Justice organizations that have a specific transformative mission, while the rest have a more charitable Food Security mission (Table 1). Consistent with Allen et al.’s (2003) study of food initiatives, farms with a Food Security mission do not mention a commitment to food system change in their respective mission statement. In addition, farms with a transformative mission are more likely to be in urban areas (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Mission by Rural-Urban Classification. Primary stated mission of nonprofit farms by rural-urban classification (Cause IQ 2024; GuideStar 2022; Economic Research Service 2021)

Full size image

Revenue varies by mission (Table 5). Overall, the average revenue across nonprofit farms is more than $950,000, with Food Justice and Education farms having both the highest average and median revenue. Connector farms, on average, have relatively high revenue ($894,00), but the median revenue ($180,000) was the lowest. The average for contributions is almost $678,000, with the highest found among Food Justice ($1,078,000) and AFN ($734,000) farms. The median for contributions is the highest among Food Justice farms ($442,000), Education ($329,000) farms rank second. Among AFNs the median for contributions ($181,000) was lower, but Connector farms had the lowest median ($119,000) contributions. Food Justice farms also had the highest average ($689,000) and median ($185,000) for grants. Connector farms have the second highest average ($435,000) in grant awards, but AFNs have the highest mean ($140,000).

Table 5 Financial by Mission. Nonprofit farms (NPFs) reporting revenue, contributions, and grants in 2020 and 2021 by primary mission
Full size table

The following sections describe the nonprofit farms by mission, starting with a brief description of those with a non-food-based mission. We then discuss farms with a food mission and, finally, look specifically at the nonprofit farms that focus on food system Transformation. While we are particularly interested in the latter, we also examine the extent to which these farms, no matter what mission, are part of LFSI.

Farms with non-food-based missions

For some nonprofit farms, being a farm is a means-to-an-end rather than an end-in-itself. Farming becomes a way to provide other services such as employment, rehabilitation, or shelter. In other cases, the farm is part of a larger mission to provide a community with greenspace or to resist development plans. These organizations then provide other services, or associated missions, such as environmental education or cultural capital in terms of linking a community to the region’s agricultural past. While these other activities may be the primary focus of some farms, we included in this study any nonprofit that grows and distributes or sells food as part of its activities, no matter what their mission.

Social welfare: providing services to the disadvantaged and differently-abled

Close to ten percent (9.3%, n = 37) of nonprofit farms have a mission based on Social Welfare. Approximately two-thirds are in urban areas (n = 25, 67.6 percent). Most are in the Southeast (n = 13, 35.1 percent) and West (n = 11, 29.7 percent). Compared to other regions, nonprofit farms in the Northeast and the Midwest are less likely to have a farm with a Social Welfare mission. These farms were found in the counties with the fewest number of LFSI organizations. Analysis of Social Welfare mission statements find that these farms tend to serve a wide variety of social needs such as training, rehabilitation, and shelter for various at-risk, in crisis, or developmentally disabled populations. Compared to other nonprofit farms, Social Welfare farms are in counties with the lowest level of educational attainment; they are in counties with the highest percent of residents with a high school degree or less (37.3 percent) and lowest with a bachelor's or higher (32.6 percent). These counties also have a higher poverty rate, but not as high as counties without a nonprofit farm. Three Social Welfare farms are in counties identified as having persistent poverty.

Preservation: stemming the tide of development

Preservation farms, which represent seven percent (n = 28) of all nonprofit farms, wish to preserve land under threat of development either as greenspace or as heritage. They tend to be in areas with active land markets, which threaten the persistence of farming (Inwood and Sharp 2012). Most, 89.3 percent (n = 25), are in metro areas (RU 1–3), and they are also more likely to be in the Northeast region (n = 17, 60.7 percent), where populations seek to stem the tide of development (Fig. 2). However, these farms are not necessarily located in highly desirable counties. In fact, using the USDA Natural Amenities scale (McGranahan 2019) in which a rank of 7 is considered most desirable and 1 is least desirable, Social Welfare (4.1), Education (4.0), AFN (3.9), and Connector (3.8) farms are in higher ranked counties than Preservation (3.7) farms. Table 6 provides additional clues as to how counties with a Preservation farm differ from those without. Preservation farms tend to be counties with higher average incomes, which are active land-market counties where development is more likely to take place; none were found to be in persistent poverty counties. Despite the reasons for their founding, these farms do tend to be in counties with the highest average number of LFSI organizations compared to other nonprofit farm counties, as well as counties with higher average numbers of agritourism operations and farms with direct sales.

Table 6 Counties with a Nonprofit Preservation, Connector, or Education Farm. Average number of farms with direct sales or agritourism, and household income in counties with at least one nonprofit farm (NPF) that claims farmland preservation, connection, or education as their primary mission
Full size table

Connection: bringing people to the farm

Connector farms, which represent 6.5 percent (n = 26) of the nonprofit farms, share many characteristics with Preservation farms. However, Preservation farms tend to emphasize the importance of greenspace while Connector farms emphasize the importance of a region’s farming heritage. Connector farms also overlap with Education farms, but their self-reported mission focuses on a broader set of goals designed to connect producers and consumers. Most Connector farms are in the Northeast (n = 9, 34.5 percent), and as Fig. 2 illustrates, in metro areas (n = 22, 84.6 percent). Only one Connector farm was found in the Southwest. Connector missions generally focus on the activities associated with farming and rural life. Farms with this mission are more likely to be in counties with higher agritourism and direct marketing activities (Table 6). They are also in higher income counties; no Connector farms are in counties of persistent poverty. As compared to other nonprofit farms, Connectors are in counties with residents who have greater access to food retailers; these counties have the lowest percentage of people with low access (18.1) and people with low income and low access (5.0 percent).

Education: teaching communities about food and nature

Educational farms tend to share with Preservation farms activities such as children’s camps and other education programming that provides experience in growing food within a small farm environment or teaching young people about nature and animals. Most of the 65 Education farms are in the Northeast (n = 26, 40.0 percent); proportionally the fewest are found in the Southwest. They also tend to be in metro areas (n = 49, 75.4 percent). Like Connector and Preservation farms, Education farms are in counties with greater agritourism activities and direct sales. These farms are also more likely to be in counties with higher income (Table 6), although three farms with an Education mission are in counties with persistent poverty.

Farms with a food-based mission

In this section, we look specifically at the farms with a food-based mission. This includes both farms with missions to feed food security needs, as well as farms that seek to change the food system and/or make it more just. Overall, we find that Food Security farms are not necessarily in the areas of highest need in terms of poverty and food access indicators.

We recognize that counties without nonprofit farms may have other, less formal forms of mutual aid around food sharing such as faith-based food pantries, local gardening efforts, and other nonmarket-based food exchange (Rosol 2020; Hendrickson et al. 2020). Nevertheless, understanding the counties that seek to fulfill food missions through nonprofit governance infrastructure is important, especially since those organizations have greater access to external funding (e.g., grants specifically designed for nonprofits) and other resources to fulfill their missions (see Table 5).

Food security: feeding the local community

Thirteen percent of nonprofit farms identified themselves in terms of food insecurity. These 53 farms are predominately found in urban (n = 45, 84.9 percent) counties and in the Northeast (n = 18, 40.0 percent). Their stated charitable mission is to provide healthy, farm-grown food to disadvantaged communities, and to meet the needs of populations with low access to commercial sources of fresh food. Many provide fresh food to food banks and see their primary mission as providing this service. However, we found that nonprofit farms were not located in counties with the greatest food security needs. Using the USDA Food and Environment Atlas, we defined food security need in terms of food access, income and poverty rate, race, reduced and free lunch, and use of SNAP benefits (Table 7). Compared to other nonprofit farms, Food Security farms were found in counties with greater food access and lower poverty. Only two of these farms are in persistent poverty counties. These findings are not surprising given that many nonprofit farms are in wealthier counties with higher levels of educational attainment. Nevertheless, it is evident that hunger exists in even the highest income counties. For example, a recent study of Silicon Valley’s Santa Clara County, with an average income of over $180,000 a year, also revealed significant food insecurity among its residents (Bacon and Baker 2017).

Table 7 Counties with a Food Security Farm. Food access and poverty in counties with at least one nonprofit farm (NPF) that claims the reduction of food insecurity as their primary mission
Full size table

Transformation: changing the food system

Nearly half of nonprofit farms describe themselves as having the mission of transforming the food system (n = 191, 47.8 percent). We find approximately one third of these farms to be in the Northeast (n = 66, 34.6 percent) whereas the Southwest has relatively few (n = 13, 6.8 percent) Transformation farms. In addition, most Transformation farms are in urban (n = 166, 86.9 percent) areas and counties that voted Democratic (69.2 percent, n = 92) in the 2020 presidential election. Many counties with similar characteristics do not have a substantial nonprofit farm presence. Moreover, the small number of Transformation farms in rural areas illustrates that nonprofit farms seeking to transform the food system are not located in places where most commodity production takes place.

Table 8 repeats some of the demographics shown in Table 3 but focuses on Transformation farms, which includes those with a Food Justice or AFN mission. As this table shows, Transformation farms are more likely to be in areas with lower poverty, higher median household income, and higher levels of educational attainment. Only 8.4 percent (n = 16) of Transformation farms are in persistent poverty counties. In other words, even though nonprofit farms have an inherent social justice mission and serve that mission in places with higher numbers of people with lower access to food retailers, who are poor, and/or of color, they are often not located in places with the largest number of historically marginalized people (e.g., Black Belt, Appalachia). Hawaii appears to be an exception. Of the 12 nonprofit farms in the state, two-thirds (n = 8, 66.7 percent) have a Transformation mission, 4 of which are Food Justice and focus on agrifood production that aligns with Native Hawaiian history and culture.

Table 8 Counties with Food Justice, Alternative Food Network, and Transformation Farms. Sociodemographics and food access in counties with at least one nonprofit farm with a Food Justice, Alternative Food Network (AFN), or Transformation-based mission (i.e., AFN and Justice)
Full size table

As noted above, nonprofit farms tend to be clustered with other LFSI organizations. The lowest average number of LFSI organizations are found in counties without nonprofit farms. Yet, data at the county level are extremely varied. For example, Philadelphia County, in Pennsylvania, had 2 AFN farms, 4 food hubs, 50 farmers markets, and 6 CSAs, whereas more rural Chittenden County, Vermont, had 4 nonprofit farms, 2 of which were AFNs, 1 food hub, 88 CSAs, and 16 farmers markets. This suggests that, no matter their mission, nonprofit farms cluster with, and contribute to, LFSI.

Food Justice and AFN farms, while both concerned with transforming the food system, differ in terms of their characteristics. The next sections describe each of these in turn.

Food justice: creating equity in the food system

Nonprofit farms with Food Justice as their core mission represent a small number of the farms that are required to report revenue to the IRS. Like those with a Food Security mission, Food Justice farms seek to make healthy foods available to those who need it. However, these farms do not describe themselves in philanthropic “helping” terms. Rather, they see their mission as linked to larger movements of mutual aid and social justice. Thus, Food Justice farms seek to empower people of color to become active members in the food system, or to grow food that is appropriate for the food security and/or cultural needs of those who are marginalized in the food system. Very few Food Justice farms were found in rural places, even those with historically marginalized populations such as the Southeastern Black Belt, the rural Southwest, and tribal lands more broadly. None were in strictly nonmetro areas (i.e., RU 7–9) where access to food may be the most problematic due to the low numbers of food retailers. Table 8 represents the demographics of the 14 counties that have at least one Food Justice farm. Because nearly all these farms are in urban counties (94.1 percent, n = 16) they are more likely to serve populations of color, particularly those in counties with a higher percentage of Black residents and counties in Hawaii with a higher percentage of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. Food Justice farms are also more likely to be in counties with higher poverty rates. Five of them were found in persistent poverty counties, all of which are in very large-metro areas (RU1)—Kings, NY (n = 2); Philadelphia, PA (n = 2); and Baltimore, MD (n = 1). While Preservation farms are in counties with an average total of 41 LFSI organizations, Food Justice farms are in counties with the second highest number (n = 37).

Alternative food networks: remaking the food system

AFN farms seek to transform the food system to make it more sustainable, healthy, and just. These farms differ from Food Justice farms as the former do not specifically concentrate on empowering marginalized populations. Nearly half of all farms with an AFN mission are concentrated in metro areas. These counties have an average of 33 LFSI organizations, particularly CSAs. AFNs represent most farms with a Transformation mission (n = 174, 91.1 percent). Therefore, many of the findings that describe Transformation farms also apply to AFNs, namely that they tend to be in communities that are more educated and with higher income (Table 8). Counties with these farms tend to have a lower rate of poverty, students eligible for free and reduced lunches, and SNAP usage than counties with Transformation farms. Eleven AFNs were found in persistent poverty counties. Despite their tendency to be associated with wealthier populations, Transformation farms may serve low-income people in their communities. At the same time, it is notable that there are many counties without a Transformation (or any nonprofit) farm that have great needs in terms of food security.

Conclusion: the role of nonprofit farms

As Goodman et al., (2012:17) note, “the local as an arena of political-economic struggle and socially constructed scale of accumulation remains an opaque category, conceptually and empirically a veritable black box.” This study of nonprofit farms represents a step toward opening the black box. In this analysis, we explored the role of nonprofit farms as alternative modes of governance in two ways: first, in terms of whether they align with local social needs as nonprofits, and second, whether they contribute to the existence of LFSI as farms. Those who conceptualize the role of nonprofits in society argue that they fill the gaps left by “market failure” and “government failure.” We explored the role of nonprofits to fill these gaps. Those who examine LFSI argue that local farms contribute to the networking of organizations to enhance local infrastructure. While further study is necessary to understand the specific impact of nonprofit farms on local and regional communities, our analysis enables us to gain a broader understanding of their nonprofit missions and their contribution to LFSI.

We find that nonprofit farms have a variety of missions. They offer a significant array of social and educational services along with providing access to local food. In this way, nonprofit farms contribute to a broader, local, social infrastructure. Because nonprofits are governed by relationships (i.e., board members and volunteers in particular) they are part of the social capital necessary for strong systems of local support. In other words, in accordance with previous studies (Flora and Flora 1993; McDaniel et al. 2021), places with high social and economic capital tend to have high social infrastructure, which makes these places less vulnerable to, and more resilient when faced with shocks–climate crises, food system disruption, and other disasters. Indeed, our analysis shows that nonprofit farms tend to be nested in clusters of LFSI organizations. According to recent studies, places with rich social infrastructure will be able to better weather the crises to come. LFSI is one such form of social infrastructure. Therefore, nonprofit farms comprise an alternative mode of governance that deserves more attention in the study of local food systems. While not all nonprofit farms pursue food system Transformation, most cluster in areas of strong LFSI. In other words, we contend that even if a nonprofit farm does not focus on food system transformation per se, by simply being a local food provider, connecting local communities – and their children – to farming, and facilitating the preservation of farmland, they do contribution toward LFSI.

However, our analysis also shows that economic resources are essential to the creation of nonprofit farms. These farms – even those with a Food Security mission – tend to be in higher income, more urbanized areas with lower levels of poverty. Farms in the highest income communities also tend to be larger in terms of revenue and attract more donations and grant funding. Many nonprofit farms are also “social enterprises” in that they sell some of their produce as a form of support for their mission. While nonprofit farms are less dependent on market exchange, they still depend on financial resources, and therefore the values and priorities of those who can donate to support these organizations. Nonprofit farms also tend to be in places with more people. Whether people donate to the farm or purchase from the farm social enterprise, these nonprofits are dependent on being near consumers who can afford to give or pay for their products.

Those who study nonprofits more broadly have noted that nonprofits are “resource dependent,” in that their activities are constrained by their individual donors and members, by their government and foundation grant support, and by their social enterprises (Anheier 2014). Nonprofit farms differ from nonprofits in general in that they receive less funding from foundations and government grants and more from donors. Since, we assume, donors and members are also local eaters, nonprofit farms are dependent on the values and preferences of their local support. As we have shown in this study, nonprofit farms tend to be in areas with wealthier and more educated residents. As a result, these farms are working to meet their mission in the counties where they are located, which may not be in the counties with the greatest need. Very few nonprofit farms are in counties – particularly rural counties – with the highest poverty, lowest food access, and/or greatest number of marginalized people. Some, of course, provide services beyond the county and target areas of higher need. However, large regions of the country are left without access to the services these farms can provide. If, in fact, LFSI contributes to the resilience of local communities, the scarcity of nonprofit farms in these places means that they may be less food resilient. This concentration of nonprofit farms and their associated LFSI in wealthier areas echoes the critiques of alternative food systems as serving higher-income populations (Slocum 2007; Alkon and Agyeman 2011; Guthman 2008). In other words, under a nonprofit “mode of governance,” nonprofit farms do contribute to the meeting of social needs, but not everywhere and not for everyone.

Those who conceptualize the reason for nonprofits argue that they fill the gaps left by “market failure” and “government failure.” As currently governed, it is clear that nonprofits cannot fill that gap, particularly when it comes to food security. While nonprofit farms offer many services to their local communities, their mode of governance inhibits their ability to make our food system more resilient and more just. However, the clustering of these farms with other LFSI means that they exist as members of larger institutional networks, and thereby contribute to the social infrastructure these clusters offer to their communities.