Green and Gold Foundation of Lake Wales Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
593718203
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lake Wales, FL, USA
Phone
8636798091
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$76,285
Expenses
$93,454
Assets
$375,917
Liabilities
$709

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NARVELL PETERSON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • NARVELL PETERSON (PRESIDENT)
  • TERRYE Y HOWELL (VICE PRESIDE)
  • IVORY WILSON (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We, the members of the green & gold foundation, inc. Will diligently and collectively dedicate our time, expertise, effort and resources to educate, motivate, inspire, and prepare our youth and community for a higher standard of success, pride, self-esteem and independence. We will succeed in these endeavors with financial assistance, building character & self- esteem, role modeling, educational programs, moral principals, cleaning, beautifying, and building our community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Intake and referral program: this program was mandated through a contract with both the city of lake wales and polk county to service all citizens seeking individual service and/or assistance. The city of lake wales was to provide annual grant assistance to cover the cost of administration and in turn the green & gold foundation was to serve as program managing agent of the "b" street community service center and also provide scheduling usage and some administrative assistance to the center's 4 other resident agencies. The basis of the agreement, "intake and referral case activities" were to include, but not limited to: (1) rent, utility, (water & light) issues (2) property taxes (3) social security issue(4)unemployment/worker's compensation issues (5) insurance issues (6) parenting issues (7) job discrimination (8) auto accidents (9) job issues (10) legal seperations (11) housing (general) (12) legal (general) (13) social issues (14) medical assistance (15) meetings - clubs, churches, associations (16) meetings - city and county (17) tax issues and seminars (18) family conflict issues (19) after school enrichment program (20) social skills problems (21) various workshops. In summary, the green and gold foundation was to provide vital intake and referral services to local citizens and organizations.

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 99% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.5%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22.5%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.02; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $82K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.