Garden Club of Michigan Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 382550867
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Grosse Pointe Farms, MI, USA
- Phone
- 3135708882
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Garden Club, Horticultural Program
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $51,705
- Expenses
- $75,676
- Assets
- $106,506
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HADLEY FRENCH (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- ANNE MILLIGAN (TREASURER)
- HADLEY FRENCH (PRESIDENT)
- LYNN ALANDT (1ST VICE PRE)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of the garden club of Michigan is to stimulate the knowledge and love of gardening, to share the advantages of association by means of educational meetings, conferences, correspondence and publications, and to restore, improve and protect the quality of the environment through educational programs and action in the fields of conservation and civic improvement.
What it reported doing in 2025
The garden club of Michigan stimulated the knowledge and love of gardening, and shared the advantages of association by means of educational meetings, conferences, correspondence and publications, restored, improved and protected the quality of the environment through educational programs and actions in the fields of conservation and civic improvement.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 81
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Sustainability: 29
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.9%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 62.6%; rating input score 63
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -46.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 57; 57th 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: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.9% of revenue deployed · 62.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $47K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.