Denver Urban Gardens

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742374848
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3032929900
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Beautification and Aesthetics

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,093,066
Expenses
$4,446,764
Assets
$1,587,956
Liabilities
$380,744

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDA APPEL LIPSIUS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDA APPEL LIPSIUS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $176,817 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Denver urban gardens' (dug) mission is to provide access, skills, and resources for people to grow healthy food in community and regenerate urban green spaces.

What it reported doing in 2025

Under the food access umbrella, dug offers three unique programs: grow a garden, culturally inclusive seeds, and community seed distribution. The grow a garden program connects individuals and community groups with seeds, seedlings, and educational resources to support growing food at home or in a dug garden. This program serves a wide range of community members, many of whom are from households with limited income. Like dug's other food access initiatives, the community seed distribution program is designed to reduce financial barriers to growing food, whether at home or in a community garden. Dug's community seed distribution is one of the largest publicly available collections of free seeds in the area, helping thousands of individuals and families start their own gardens. The culturally inclusive seeds program is designed to support community members with marginalized identities by providing access to rare and specialty plant varieties, with an emphasis on cultural inclusivity. Dug believes that meaningful and sustainable food access prioritizes foods that are familiar and desirable to each individual, regardless of background. Through this program, dug supports a global array of growing and culinary practices, celebrating the shared diversity of its community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.7%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: -8.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.7% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.