Garden Club of New Jersey

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
226042569
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009, Form 990-N 2014
Location
East Brunswick, NJ, USA
Phone
7322490947
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Garden Club, Horticultural Program

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$124,315
Expenses
$64,064
Assets
$1,324,040
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN BERDAHL (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SUSAN BERDAHL (PRESIDENT)
  • PEGGY MORRISSEY (1ST VP)
  • ONNOLEE MILLEA (2ND VP)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To coordinate the interests of nj garden clubs, to aid in the protection and conservation of our natural resources, to study and teach horticulture and flower arranging.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Garden Club of New Jersey provides scholarships to students who study in the fields of horticulture, floriculture, landscape design, botany, plant pathology, agronomy, environmental science, city planning, land management, and related subjects. The scholarships are open to residents of New Jersey and are for one year. The colleges and universities do not have to be in NJ. There are approximately 10 scholarships given per year, ranging from $1,500 to $3,500. The program is publicized on the GCNJ website, the GCNJ newsletter, Newsleaf, and through the network of state garden clubs. Aspecial committee reviews applications and awards the scholarships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, 46% for grants, and 9% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.8%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 72.8%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 48.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 20.67; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.8% of revenue deployed · 72.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $47K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.