Vermont Community Garden Network Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311783597
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Essex Junction, VT, USA
Phone
8023097484
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$348,052
Expenses
$332,418
Assets
$209,249
Liabilities
$3,736

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Hannah Harrington (President)
  • Joseph Kiefer (Vice President)
  • Michelle Gates (Co Executive Director)
  • Carolina Lukac (Co Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Tamson Hanson (Director): $62,877 total reported compensation
  • Carolina Lukac (Co Executive Director): $62,877 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 cultivate well-being by helping people of all ages access resources to grow food, build confidence and connect with each other. Our goals are to increase access to gardening resources, develop outreach and education programs to cultivate and sustain gardens.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025 we continued to offer a robust curriculum of garden and nutrition programs to a variety of demographics in Vermont. We have been able to reach seniors, new Americans, your families and more with hands on gardening programs as well as class room style workshops. Whether it be a series on preserving your harvest for winter months, or how to combat some of natures toughest garden pests, we have you covered! Our collective garden, Seedsong has demonstrated increased efficiencies over traditional community gardening and we plan to expand to additional locations. Further details on this and all of our work can be found in our Annual Report, found on our website.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.5%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $63K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.