Naples Garden Club

Legal name: Naples Garden Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
596159376
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Naples, Florida, US
Phone
2162721891
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Garden Club, Horticultural Program

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$358,292
Expenses
$211,855
Assets
$532,892
Liabilities
$44,077

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ann Hunter (President)
  • Abbie Sladick (President Elect)

People named in this filing

  • Ann Hunter (President)
  • Abbie Sladick (President Elect)
  • Barbara laswell (VP. Prog&Edu)

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 mission of the Naples Garden Club™ is to provide opportunities for sharing and learning about horticulture, floral design and the environment in a congenial, supportive atmosphere.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Naples Garden Club provides a wide range of educational programs, workshops, and community learning opportunities that support our mission of sharing and expanding knowledge in horticulture, floral design, and environmental stewardship in a congenial and supportive atmosphere. Our signature House & Garden Tour, held annually for over 65 years, remains our largest educational and fundraising event, welcoming more than 850 visitors and staffed entirely by dedicated volunteer members. In addition to the Tour, the Club offers year-round workshops, demonstrations, youth and adult education programs, and community initiatives that promote learning, creativity, and environmental awareness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.2%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 76.6%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 72.2%; rating input score 72; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40.9%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.52; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 47.2% of revenue deployed · 76.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $162K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 23 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.