Friends of Lakewood

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943041320
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Lakewood, WA, USA
Phone
2535844106
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,016,087
Expenses
$1,102,924
Assets
$4,813,822
Liabilities
$329,816

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Justin Henderson (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Justin Henderson (Executive Director): $55,756 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Lakewold Gardens strives to provide equitable access to provides intentional encounters with the life-changing power of nature fostering peace creativity and healing in our communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024 Lakewold Gardens advanced its mission through year-round public access to its 10-acre historic garden and Georgian-style Wagner House featuring art exhibits music and poetry series veterans arts programs and educational initiatives such as the Deep Discovery climate-education partnership with Clover Park School District. Over 10,000 visitors engaged with the gardens and programs during the year. The organization serves the public with a varied and expanding offer of arts programming tours rentals events festivals and educational activities. Over 11,000 people annually experience the organizations grounds and offerings through the 10-acre historic garden estate. The organizations Deep Discovery youth program and adult horticulture programs serve an additional 1,200 people. Deep Discovery is supported by the Russell Family Foundation and allows students in the Clover Park School district to experience field trips and an educational experience at Lakewold Gardens. The program has been implemented into the science curriculum of the Clover Park School District.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.3%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 72.2%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.5%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.36; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.3% of revenue deployed · 72.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $796K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $56K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 44 of 44 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.