Lewes in Bloom Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
301397481
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lewes, DE, USA
Phone
3024375265
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Garden Club, Horticultural Program

Reported finances

Revenue
$262,303
Expenses
$169,343
Assets
$376,451
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • WILLIAM ADELMAN (MEMBER AT LA)
  • CYNTHIA DEEMEDIO (MEMBER AT LA)
  • ROSEMARY EWING (MEMBER AT LA)

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 purpose of lewes in bloom, as directed by their board of advisors, is to promote and maintain the beautification of lewes public gardens and parks through citizen volunteerism, thus helping to relieve the city of lewes of this task, thereby inspiring community spirit. The goals of lewes in bloom are to be recognized and supported as a reliable community resource, provide opportunitites for interested parties toenhance the city landscape, provide opportities for volunteerism, and eduation for the membership, as well as supporters of the lewes community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Members of lewes in bloom plant and maintain 20 gardens in the city of lewes, Delaware.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 66% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.4%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 59.1%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th 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: 35.4%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.22; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.4% of revenue deployed · 59.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $100K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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 39/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.