Goosefoot Community Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911960139
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-PF 2020, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Langley, WA, USA
Phone
3603214535
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Private Operating Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,265,178
Expenses
$2,443,369
Assets
$14,341,656
Liabilities
$1,895,620

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN LARSEN GORDON (PRESIDENT)
  • JEAN SINGER (CO-VICE PRESIDENT)
  • NICOLE WHITTINGTON-JOHNSON (CO-VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ELISE MILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELISE MILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $134,232 total reported compensation
  • KRISTA R HUGHES (FINANCE EXECUTIVE): $107,907 total reported compensation
  • JULIE GRUBBS (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $103,502 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Goosefoot works together with the south whidbey community to create essential solutions. We address community needs, fund local nonprofits, help local businesses grow, preserve great places and connect neighbors.

What it reported doing in 2025

Essential services - address the emergent needs of people experiencing housing insecurity or displacement. Provide direct monetary grant to named supported organization, south whidbey at home, which provides services for seniors aging in place. Provide in-kind and direct monetary support to island roots housing, goosefoot's former housing program which in 2024 obtained its own 501(c)3 status.

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 73% for direct work, and 27% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 96
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.2%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 61.8%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.8%; rating input score 99; 42nd 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: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.87; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.2% of revenue deployed · 61.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $134K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 23 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.