The Garden Club of America

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
131626773
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2127538287
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Garden Club, Horticultural Program

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,369,737
Expenses
$5,497,289
Assets
$65,702,198
Liabilities
$2,636,029

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARILYN DONAHUE (PRESIDENT)
  • ABBY COFFIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARGARET COSTAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LISA GADSDEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARY HARMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BETSY HUFFMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER BARNETTE (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $242,360 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 purpose of the garden club of america is to stimulate the knowledge and love of gardening, to share the advantages of association by means of educational meetings, conferences, correspondence, and publications, 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

Educational programsthe gca offers a wide range of far reaching educational programs that benefit gca clubs, their communities and/or the public. These include educational publications, materials, resources, conferences and workshops as developed by gca committees. Educational programs include: annual meeting, the shirley meneice horticultural conference, the national affairs & legislation conference, conservation study conference, photography conference, floral design conference, and visiting gardens. Also included are programs such as gca programs on demand, seed share database, club membership showcase, educational workshops and opportunities related to exhibiting, planning and judging flower shows, and support of zone events.

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 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.5%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.2%; rating input score 83; 22nd 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.4%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.95; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.5% of revenue deployed · 71.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $242K · 13 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.