Green Foothills Foundation Dba Green Foothills

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
946121854
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Palo Alto, CA, USA
Phone
6509687243
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,948,893
Expenses
$1,291,303
Assets
$3,958,372
Liabilities
$210,886

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ann Monroe (President)
  • Lisa Liddle (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Julie Hutcheson (Executive Dir.): $141,759 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to protect local nature and farmland to ensure a healthy environment for everyone.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community Building Programs: Leadership, Tribal/Indigenous Partnerships, Healing in Nature. Our Leadership Program trains and invests in community members of all backgrounds in equitable, inclusive environmental activism in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Benito Counties. This year marked our 12th cohort and the third year we offered the program tuition-free and in Spanish and English, thanks to generous support from donors. The program builds community leader capacity that harnesses the power of collaboration within communities and mobilizes change agents to advance equitable, inclusive environmental activism locally. The Program aims to create pathways for people from all backgrounds to engage in and lead conservation work to help broaden representation in the local conservation movement. Leadership Program alumni 1) assume leadership roles where they apply a lens of environmental advocacy and cultural humility in their work; 2) initiate and join successful campaigns that advance Green Foothills mission and vision; and 3) are involved in the Green Foothills community. 2025 impact metrics: 22 local changemakers graduated (including 2 Spanish speakers) for a total of 300 alumni since 2014. 31 alumni took on new leadership roles for a total of 168 since 2014, and 13 initiatives were won by alumni for a total of 74 initiatives since 2014. In 2025, Green Foothills advocacy staff continued to partner with the Amah Mutsun to protect Juristac - the sacred heart of their ancestral territory - from a proposed open-pit sand and gravel mine, and again provided $3,000 in sponsorships to Calpulli Tonalehqueh, an Aztec dance group, for their Mexica New Year event. We also consulted with our Tribal and Indigenous Partners about their evolving needs, incorporating their feedback into our new 2025-2030 Green Foothills Strategic Plan Partnership Pillar. This is the first Green Foothills Strategic Plan to recognize (1) the importance of building authentic relationships with local tribes and Indigenous groups, and (2) that Indigenous peoples are foundational guardians of the land, carrying centuries of ecological wisdom that scientific approaches have often overlooked. The goals of the Pillar are to: Support and partner with local tribes to advance Indigenous land stewardship, including access to and ownership of ancestral lands and restoration of culturally significant landscapes. Build capacity among Indigenous partner tribes and organizations to effectively advocate for the permanent protection of their ancestral lands and engage in restoration and stewardship efforts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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.
  • 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: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th 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: 87.2%; rating input score 87; 41st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33.7%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.07; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49% of revenue deployed · 69.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $903K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $142K · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 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: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • 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 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.