International Palm Society Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
590829820
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5126406249
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Garden Club, Horticultural Program

Reported finances

Revenue
$729,027
Expenses
$388,549
Assets
$1,476,940
Liabilities
$3,865

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Andy Hurwitz (President)
  • Mary Lock (Vice President)
  • Jeff Brusseau (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Jason Dewees (Director)
  • Cindy Adair (Director)
  • Norman Bezona (Director)

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

The International Palm Society Inc is operated solely and exclusively for scientific and/or educational purposes related to the study of palms and their propagation, culture, conservation, and development.

What it reported doing in 2025

The International Palm Society continued to serve its members by publishing 'Palms'. The quarterly journal 'Palms' contains original articles concerning palms, ethnobotony, taxonomy, horticulture and conversation. A supplement contains information regarding activities of the various chapters and related organizations. IPS maintains a website with scientific information regarding palms, species descriptions, horticultural requirements and diseases. IPS also sponsors original research about palms.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 75% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. 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: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.3%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 94.1%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: 46.7%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.8; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.3% of revenue deployed · 94.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $366K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 29 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 23 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.