Start Garden Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
811987459
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Phone
6166694141
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,326,287
Expenses
$3,057,088
Assets
$2,332,139
Liabilities
$1,349,373

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DAREL ROSS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTORPRESIDENT): $190,982 total reported compensation
  • JORGE GONZALEZ (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $152,838 total reported compensation
  • LAURIE SUPINSKI (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $148,878 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of start garden is to bring together financial, intellectual, and social capital to entrepreneurs to empower the startup ecosystem of west Michigan.

What it reported doing in 2025

Start garden works to establish a culture of entrepreneurship and invest into that culture. Start garden provides physical infrastructure for new business incubation, services to build an entrepreneurs intellectual capital, events and programs to expand an entrepreneurs social network throughout the business community and build capacity of other organizations supporting entrepreneurs and streamline their participation in the broader system. Start garden makes available to its entrepreneurs/members both physical space and technology, but also access to relationship, education, mentorships, and financial resources.

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 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.1%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 68.5%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.4%; rating input score 91; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: -31.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.1% of revenue deployed · 68.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $191K · 13 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • 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.