The Garden of Giving

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900446344
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Saylorsburg, PA, USA
Phone
5704021282
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$28,130
Expenses
$35,851
Assets
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • TAMMY GRAEBER (CHAIR)
  • ADRIAN BENNETT (BOARD MEMBER)
  • KELLIE DAVIS (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 mission of the gardn of giving is to provide high quality vegetables and eggs to the local food banks in monroe county pa. They also provide programs and services that are centered on improving the quality of life and teach the importance of including vegetables in daily meals for all residents in monroe and carbon counties pa.

What it reported doing in 2025

To provide high quality vegetables and eggs to the food banks of monroe county Pennsylvania. The garden of giving also provides programs and services that improve the quality of life and stress the importance using vegetables in daily meals for all residents in monroe county and carbon county Pennsylvania.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.1%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 74.6%; rating input score 75

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -27.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -17.8% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.7% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.1% of revenue deployed · 74.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $27K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 6 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.