Mead Botanical Garden Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200198427
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Winter Park, FL, USA
Phone
4076226323
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Parks and Playgrounds

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$782,234
Expenses
$663,984
Assets
$1,836,535
Liabilities
$86,446

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CYNTHIA HASENAU (FORMER CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • CYNTHIA HASENAU (FORMER CEO): $57,374 total reported compensation
  • ASHLEY FRAEBEL (EXECUTIVE DI): $44,638 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Restoration and establishment of mead botanical garden as a world-class public garden including fundraising, programming, garden development and operations. Restoration efforts are a collaborative public-private partnership with the city of winter park.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization conducts on-going fundraising intiatives to support its operation of mead botanical garden, which includes improvement and maintenance of the garden and facilities, planning and hosting a variety of nature-based youth, environmental and wellness programs, production of horticultural and cultural enrichment community events, and coordination of year-round volunteer projects.

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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.2%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 72.4%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.1%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.77; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.2% of revenue deployed · 72.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $481K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $57K · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.