Growing Gardens of Boulder County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841454093
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Boulder, CO, USA
Phone
3034439952
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Garden Club, Horticultural Program

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,467,025
Expenses
$1,995,349
Assets
$2,796,317
Liabilities
$186,910

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • VANESSA KEELEY (EXECUTIVE DI): $157,479 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Growing gardens' mission is to enrich the lives of our community through sustainable urban agriculture that empowers people to experience a direct and deep connection with plants, the land, and each other.

What it reported doing in 2025

Peace garden: the peace garden program of growing gardens provides nutrition education and hands-on learning to preschool- 8th grade children. Field trips are hosted on farms in both boulder and longmont and educators visit classrooms to educate students through st vrain valley and boulder valley school districts. Summer camps and day off school camps provide additional opportunities for children to be engaged and learning on the farm.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.2%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 83%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.1%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.2% of revenue deployed · 83% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.