Detroit Abloom
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 465272462
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Detroit, MI, USA
- Phone
- (313) 587-2446
- Rating
- 45
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $80,448
- Expenses
- $26,804
- Assets
- $53,662
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Halei Kurmas (Board Member Flower Farmer): $12,780 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 promote the spiritual mental and physical health of the community; to advance plant-based dietary education; to promote envirnmental conservation; and to use cut flower farming to repurpose blighted vacant land into beautiful and productive landscapes.
What it reported doing in 2024
Native Plants initiative. Educate and provide a local place for people to acquire native plants. We started our native plant nursery in 2018 and have grown the operation every year since. We now grow over 75 natives and overwinter them in oiur nursery and we are the only nursery in Detroit. There are other entities that acquire natives to sell during special sales. I do not know of another that actually grows the plants. This is of tremendous importance to retaining wildlife populations bees wasps birds etc. Our net revenue of $19357 exceeded 2023.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
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: 92
- Accountability: 69
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: 0
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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 66.7%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 47.7%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -15.6% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $7K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $13K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 34 of 42 current checks pass · 8 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.