Gardenshare Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161607595
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Canton, NY, USA
Phone
3152618054
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Banks, Pantries

Reported finances

Revenue
$273,425
Expenses
$249,841
Assets
$199,553
Liabilities
$34,818

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER MCAVOY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CARLENE L DOANE (EXECUTIVE DI): $61,466 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's mission is to promote a local food system that ensures food security for all st. Lawrence county residents by connecting consumers and producers, supporting equitable distribution of food resources, removing barriers to access, including stakeholders in decision making, providing food justice education and advocacy, and engaging with community partners.

What it reported doing in 2025

Local food guide - gardenshare's annual local food guide and farmers market promotion programs help ensure that the county has a vibrant, local food system where our food choices are healthy for us, for our communities, and for the environment. Snap at the farmers markets - gardenshare makes it possible for people to use snap (food stamps) at area farmers markets, helping support local farmers and helping to ensure that everyone in the county has access to enough nutritious and affordable food to sustain a healthy lifestyle. Bonus bucks - gardenshare provides subsidies to help low-income families buy csa shares or make purchases at farmers markets. This way of securing healthy, fresh, local food could otherwise be out of reach for many working and low-income households. The subsidy is paid directly to the farmer, thus helping the farmer make a living to support his family also.

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 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.5%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.6%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.6%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.5% of revenue deployed · 81.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $203K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $61K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.