River Oaks Garden Club
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 741145998
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Houston, TX, USA
- Phone
- 7135232483
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Garden Club, Horticultural Program
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $899,674
- Expenses
- $914,844
- Assets
- $2,643,842
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
56 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Vaughan Clark (President)
- Madeleine Sheehy (President-Elect)
- Patti Hopson (Past President)
People named in this filing
- Vaughan Clark (President)
- Madeleine Sheehy (President-Elect)
- Patti Hopson (Past President)
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 River Oaks Garden Club is to stimulate the knowledge and love of gardening and to restore, improve, and protect the quality of the environment through educational programs and action in the fields of conservation and civic improvement.
What it reported doing in 2024
See Schedule OThe River Oaks Garden Club seeks to stimulate the knowledge and love of gardening through meetings, conferences and publications and to foster conservation, civic improvement and education. The Club supports other educational and cultural organizations that advance the club's mission. The organizations supported during the 2024-2025 fiscal year are listed on Schedule I. A Garden Book for Houston and the Texas Gulf Coast, first published in 1929, was entirely updated, expanded and redesigned with an emphasis on environmentally friendly gardening and native plants. The current edition, released in March 2013, reaffirms the commitment of River Oaks Garden Club to preserving our environment, promoting sustainability, and planting with a purpose. Included are lists of the newest varieties of plants native to the Houston area, and updated ideas on organic gardening practices, drainage, pruning and watering.
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 44% for direct work, 54% for grants, and 3% for affiliated organizations.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 95
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 57
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.2%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 94.5%; rating input score 95; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- 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: -1.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.89; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 80.2% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 56 of 56 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $707K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 56 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 13 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.