The Greenleaf Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 831214145
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2020–2020
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Norcross, GA, USA
- Phone
- 4042638780
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $98,059
- Expenses
- $65,161
- Assets
- $122,667
- Liabilities
- $56,480
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BOB KILINSKI (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- BOB KILINSKI (PRESIDENT)
- JAMES LARSON (TREASURER)
- BRIAN DAVIS (SECRETARY)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide exceptional outdoor programming around urban farming and skills development for underprivileged youth throughout the southeast, aimed at enabling them to confidence and relationships that will help them excel throughout their education path.
What it reported doing in 2020
Through our farm programs we are able to bring the initiative to different properties through our farm in a box program, educate and retain residents through our farm to resident program, and engage our local community through creating strong relationships with the local government and businesses.the properties are diverse and each farm has it's own unique personality but, it is the visionary core values of sustainability, and social responsibility that drives us.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 61
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 60.5%; rating input score 60
- Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 33.5%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.88; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 60.5% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $59K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.