Greenwich Botanical Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
066068606
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cos Cob, CT, USA
Phone
2038699242
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Garden Club, Horticultural Program

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$820,650
Expenses
$632,633
Assets
$886,344
Liabilities
$146,895

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN TAM (PRESIDENT)
  • CAITLIN O'HARA (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KAREN TAM (PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH PEYTON (TREASURER)
  • CAITLIN O'HARA (VICE PRESIDENT)

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

The greenwich botanical center is a non-profit volunteer organization dedicated to promoting horticulture, conservation and the arts through educational programs, outreach activities and special events.

What it reported doing in 2024

Outreach - outreach programs are given to seniors and children. Senior outreach is done monthly from october to march to more than 150 adults generally living in senior centers. The outreach volunteers help the adults arrange or plant various material depending on the season. The director of horticulture and director of youth work with school children on horticulture enrichment programs in the greenhouse. The gbc provides a summer enrichment program for children and has an outdoor teaching garden where vegetables and herbs are grown and donated to a food bank.

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 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

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 65.6%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.9%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54% of revenue deployed · 65.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $415K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.