California Garden Clubs Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
946083114
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2014
Location
San Fernando, CA, USA
Phone
5108459608
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$161,344
Expenses
$123,422
Assets
$744,405
Liabilities
$20,169

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

Leadership & pay

94 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Carol Vallens (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • George Perko (Treasurer): $4,200 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To create, promote and further interest in horticulture, gardening, floral and landscape design, plant and bird life, and appreciation of the natural beauties of the State of California. To encourage civic beautification and roadside development. To assist in projects for the conservation of our natural resources. To coordinate and centralize the work of the various California garden clubs and bring them into a closer relation of mutual helpfulness. To cooperate with other agencies in furthering interests in educational areas.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Organization provides scholarships and awards to create, promote and further interest in horticulture, gardening, floral and landscape design, plant and bird life, and appreciation of the natural beauties of the State of California. Six scholarships of $2,000 each were awarded during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 to college students planning careers in fields related to the activities and objectives of the Organization. The Organization provides many annual recognition awards to garden clubs and their members consisting of certificates, pins and cash amounts of $10 to $150. In addition, the Organization provides service certificates to clubs and members to honor their years of service, and certificates of commendation to garden centers, nurseries and garden-related businesses to commend them for their outstanding contributions to, and support of, the mission and objectives of the Organization's clubs.

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

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: 31
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 26.4%; rating input score 26
  • Program expense ratio: 49.6%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.5%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.03; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 26.4% of revenue deployed · 49.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 94 of 94 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $61K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 94 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 26/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.