Cambridge Plant & Garden Club Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 223517157
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Cambridge, MA, USA
- Phone
- 6178763566
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $48,153
- Expenses
- $36,400
- Assets
- $112,900
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PAMELA LINGEL (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- PAMELA LINGEL (PRESIDENT)
- CANDACE YOUNG (VICE-PRESIDE)
- SUJATA SOMANI (DIRECTOR/FIN)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Support of civic horticultural projects in the city of cambridge.
What it reported doing in 2024
To help maintain grounds (including pruning, lawn care, and plantings) at hooper lee nichols house (cambridge historical society) support revitalization of magazine beach in addition, help fund school gardening programs, provide summer scholarships and support other gardening/horticultural projects in the cambridge area. Working with city and state advocating and supporting improvements at state parks in cambridge. Advocating replacement of aging trees in some areas of memorial drive.
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 - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 59.4%; rating input score 59
- Program expense ratio: 78.6%; rating input score 79
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 24.4%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.1; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 59.4% of revenue deployed · 78.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $29K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.