Community Gardens of Tucson Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860981116
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
Phone
5207958823
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$294,402
Expenses
$197,130
Assets
$196,215
Liabilities
$1,833

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Gillian Paine-Murrieta (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Brittany Guerrero (Executive Dir.): $51,260 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to build community gardens where Tucsonans grow food, work and learn together, and nurture well-being in our communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, the Community Gardens of Tucson (CGT) provided 458 garden plots to 1358 community members, resulting in an estimated 49,439 pounds of food grown. CGT collaborated with five schools to provide 150 gardening education classes to children and families, reaching 600 kids. CGT hosted 17 skill-building workshops to support beginning and experienced gardeners, with over 100 participants attending. Our Food Resiliency Program, which extends free and sliding scale plot fee assistance to local residents, enabled 100 low income and food insecure families in Tucson to grow food. We held 30 volunteer workdays and attended 20 community events. We partnered with the Primavera Foundation and brought on 3 more gardens increasing gardening access providing more opportunities for local residents to grow their own food. We partnered with the City of Tucson to launch the Food cycle at Home Program which allows residents to drop off food scraps at designated garden sites for composting.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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 total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.1%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.6%; rating input score 84; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.1% of revenue deployed · 80.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $159K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $51K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.