Salem Friendship and Garden Club
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 933710025
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Salem, NH, USA
- Phone
- 6037707319
- Rating
- 42
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Citizen Participation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $91,817
- Expenses
- $7,453
- Assets
- $89,800
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Lorie Ball (President)
- Angelica Pierson (Second Vice-President)
- Kim Cummings (First Vice-President)
People named in this filing
- Lorie Ball (President)
- Angelica Pierson (Second Vice-President)
- Kim Cummings (First Vice-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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To educate members and the public about gardening, horticulture, conservation, and community beautification while promoting friendship and volunteer service.
What it reported doing in 2025
Community Beautification and Pollinator Garden Stewardship: Volunteers planned, installed, and maintained public gardens throughout Salem, including continued stewardship of the Salem Town Forest Pollinator Garden. Activities included planting, weeding, mulching, watering, and maintaining pollinator-friendly landscapes to enhance public spaces, support local ecosystems, and educate the community about native plants and pollinators. These gardens are open to the public year-round and benefit residents and visitors. Persons Benefited: Entire community, including Salem residents and visitors.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
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 total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 10
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 81
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 1.8%; rating input score 2
- Program expense ratio: 22.5%; rating input score 22
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 91.9%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.05; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 1.8% of revenue deployed · 22.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 2/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 22/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.