Jefferson County Greenways Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630733391
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Birmingham, AL, USA
Phone
2058338264
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,740,383
Expenses
$1,442,510
Assets
$6,847,611
Liabilities
$202,532

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANET SIMPSON-TEMPLIN (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CARLEE SANFORD (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CARLEE SANFORD (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $112,241 total reported compensation
  • JANET SIMPSON-TEMPLIN (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $65,559 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We promote education and appreciation of nature through public programming, habitat restoration, and maintenance of a nature preserve for our neighbors, native plants, and animals.

What it reported doing in 2024

We promote education and appreciation of nature through public programming, habitat restoration, and maintenance of a nature preserve. Thanks to the generosity of donors and community partners, our programs aim to provide equitable access to nature, deliver high-quality environmental education, and promote health of community members as well as native habitats. We seek to inspire a deeper connection to our natural surroundings, cultivating future environmental stewards.

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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.7%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 76.7%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 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: 47.4%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.75; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.3%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 32.6% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.7% of revenue deployed · 76.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 42/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.