Arlington Garden in Pasadena

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202219627
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Pasadena, CA, USA
Phone
6265785434
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Botanical Gardens, Arboreta and Botanical Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$421,552
Expenses
$434,716
Assets
$319,094
Liabilities
$4,577

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michelle Matthews (Executive Director (end 10/24))

Highest reported compensation

  • Michelle Matthews (Executive Director (end 10/24)): $109,164 total reported compensation
  • Andrew Jewell (Interim ED (10/24)/ED (trans 4/25)): $52,392 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Arlington Garden is a climate-appropriate, habitat garden offering learning, inspiration, and enjoyment for all.

What it reported doing in 2024

Arlington Garden is a community supported, water-wise garden that celebrates Southern California's Mediterranean climate. Our mission is to engage, educate and demonstrate how a climate appropriate garden can be both beautiful and easy to maintain while incorporating the goals of water conservation and environmental sustainability. Arlington Garden is a place that offers inspirational beauty where people can experience a healthier, more responsible living dedicated to promoting sustainable land use and appreciation of habitat for birds, bees and butterflies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% 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 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: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.2%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 45.5%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -3.1%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.2% of revenue deployed · 45.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $198K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $109K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.