Sun City West Garden Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942861725
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Sun City West, AZ, USA
Phone
9209606661
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Botanical Gardens, Arboreta and Botanical Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$56,601
Expenses
$51,304
Assets
$69,418

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIA MILLER (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL ANDERSON (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JULIA MILLER (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL ANDERSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KAREN ANDERSON (TREASURER)

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

The desert garden club of sun city west operates exclusively for charitable and educational purposes. Through membership fees collected and the sale of locally harvested desert cactus and plants, our revenue is then donated to other sun city west az, surprise az and select other az not for profit local 501c3 organizations. Our educational goal is to teach our members through experts in desert plantings and landscape beautification.

What it reported doing in 2025

Expenses incurred are from maintenance and operations of the greenhouse that is used to plant and propagate desert garden plants. Those plants are then sold to local area residents for the purpose of the desert garden club to be able to donate funds to other non for profit 501c3 organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 91% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.4%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.35; rating input score 56; 56th 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: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $62K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 7 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.