Gardenland Mission Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270594445
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Gibsonton, FL, USA
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$24,120
Expenses
$22,214
Assets
$3,743

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Cackling (Board President)

People named in this filing

  • Richard Cackling (Board President)
  • Mary Cackling (Administrator)
  • Maryann Almadar (Board Treasurer)

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

Our mission states that we are dedicated to the rescue and care of feral abandoned and in-need animals in our community. In carrying out our mission we have become an animal sanctuary for over 50 community cats. Early on we realized the need to keep the cats contained indoors in order to also protect the wildlife birds and pollinators in the wooded areas that are on and around our location.

What it reported doing in 2025

Gibsonton Dream project provides the public with information regarding migrating birds and local wildlife as well as their dwindling habitats in our community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.1%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.9%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 17; 17th 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: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $22K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 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: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.