Native Plant Society of Texas
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 742697896
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Fredericksburg, TX, USA
- Phone
- 8309979272
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Pollution Abatement and Control Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $961,055
- Expenses
- $761,699
- Assets
- $1,205,696
- Liabilities
- $6,483
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
57 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Neal Hinders (Chapter President)
- Julia Weatherby (Chapter President)
- Courtney L Dyer (Chapter President)
- Sharon S Odegar (Chapter President)
- Karen J Little (Chapter President)
- Felicia Zeitman (Chapter President)
Highest reported compensation
- Meg Inglis (Executive Director): $71,811 total reported compensation
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 native plant society of Texas is promote conservation, research and utilization of native plants and planthabitats of Texas through education, outreach and example.
What it reported doing in 2024
Education - Programs conducted across the State of Texas performed by the Society's State Office and local chapters. Educational programs include, but are not limited to, monthly chapter presentations, our Native Landscape Certification Program, educational workshops, annual Spring and Fall Symposia, Research Grants, and Student Scholarships. Topics include wildscape presentations, scientific papers, field trips, and interactive workshops.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.1%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 76.2%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: $10.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 75%; rating input score 75; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 65.8%; rating input score 66; 31st 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 20.7%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.58; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 28.4% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 84.1% of revenue deployed · 76.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 56 of 56 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $580K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 57 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 30 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.