Hannah Project Partnership for Academic Achievement

What it reported doing in 2025

ADVOCACY CULTURE AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SAVE OUR CITY (SOC), a community coalition organized by the Hannah Project in fall 2023, formed in response to the Marin County Board of Supervisors' approval of a controversial 73-unit apartment complex at 825 Drake Avenue without sufficient community input. SOC opposed the project because of concerns about infrastructure neglect, gentrification, overdevelopment, safety, traffic, environmental impacts, and social equity. The coalition argued that applying SB 35's fast-track housing provisions to Marin City-one of the county's most racially and economically diverse communities-misused the law by concentrating more density in an area that already carries a disproportionate share of Marin County's affordable housing, while wealthier communities faced no comparable development burden. The SAVE OUR CITY coalition sought to stop the 825 Drake Avenue project through grassroots organizing, public protest, and legal action. Specifically, SOC: 1. Targeted project funding: In May 2023, Save Our City filed a lawsuit challenging the Marin County Board of Supervisors' approval of $40 million in tax-exempt municipal bonds for the project. Rather than directly challenge California's SB 35 fast-track law, SOC focused on the project's financial foundation. 2. Organized protests and petitions: The coalition mobilized residents through petitions, public meetings, and construction-site demonstrations. It also sought temporary restraining orders that delayed or paused early demolition work. 3. Built community and environmental support: SOC partnered with local organizations, including the Golden Gate Village Resident Council, and gained support from environmental advocates who criticized the project for overlooking infrastructure limits and risks to vulnerable residents. SAVE OUR CITY achieved partial success. 1. Bond Financing Struck Down: In late 2024, Marin County Superior Court Judge Stephen P. Freccero ruled in favor of Save Our City and invalidated $40 million in tax-exempt municipal bonds for the project. The court found that the Marin County Board of Supervisors had mistakenly concluded it lacked authority to deny the bonds under state fast-track housing laws. 2. Project Split Compromise: Because the lawsuit blocked only public financing-not the building permit-the developer, The Pacific Companies, continued construction. However, sustained legal and community pressure led to a major compromise. In 2025, the Board of Supervisors approved dividing the project between two sites: * Significant Reduction in Project Density: 825 Drake Avenue (Marin City): Downsized from 74 units to 42 units with 45 parking spaces. * Wealthier Community Forced to Absorb Affordable Housing:150 Shoreline Highway (Mill Valley/Tamalpais Valley): The remaining 32 units were relocated to this second site. 3. Amplified Systemic Housing Issues: Save Our City effectively exposed how fast-tracking laws (like SB 35) can be weaponized against marginalized enclaves, pushing Marin County officials to promise that future housing developments will feature significantly more neighborhood input. 2025 Parent University The Hannah Project's inaugural Parent University, held on April 19, 2025, brought parents and caregivers together for a full day of learning, connection, and empowerment. Keynote speaker JC Farr opened the program with Helping Parents Navigate the School System, providing families with guidance for understanding schools and advocating effectively for their children. Workshops addressed many of the challenges families face, including academic success, early intervention, special education and IEPs, immigrant families' educational rights, college pathways, effective parent-child communication, discipline and self-control, social-emotional development, screen and social-media safety, youth stress and anxiety, and substance-use prevention. Parent University connected families with educators, counselors, health professionals, and

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 46.9%; rating input score 47
• Program expense ratio: 52.1%; rating input score 52
• Fundraising efficiency: $54.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: Limited
• Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
• Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
  • Whistleblower policy: Fail
  • Document-retention policy: Fail
  • 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: 10.1%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 18%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 18.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings