Big Green

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
275083595
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7202138162
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nutrition

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,694,541
Expenses
$5,600,201
Assets
$8,845,178
Liabilities
$291,767

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kimbal Musk (CEO, Director & Executice Chairman)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dianna Zeegers (VP of Program/ Secretary): $174,421 total reported compensation
  • Madeleine Nelson (VP of Advancement): $164,583 total reported compensation
  • Isaiah Weatherspoon (VP of Operations): $44,628 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Big green believes growing food changes lives. Growing food improves nutrition security and mental health, gets us into nature, and opens our eyes to the weather volatility created by climate change. For twelve years, big green has helped people grow their own food with school and home-based garden programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Our school-based program, Jumpstart, provides schools and other educational spaces with modular garden beds and mini-grants to kick off or reinvigorate their garden programs. The gardens are incorporated into the school day and positioned to help schools meet their goals in experiental learning, STEM, health and nutrition, social-emotional wellbeing, and more.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
  • 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: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.6%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 27th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.3%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.58; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.6% of revenue deployed · 61.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $174K · 11 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $325K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 43 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 40 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.