The Portland Garden Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930427037
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5032222845
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Garden Club, Horticultural Program

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$378,974
Expenses
$444,217
Assets
$698,254
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

41 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MADIE RICHENSTEIN (PRESIDENT)
  • SHERYL MCDONALD (PRESIDENT EL)

People named in this filing

  • MADIE RICHENSTEIN (PRESIDENT)
  • SHERYL MCDONALD (PRESIDENT EL)
  • SHARON DOWSETT (VICE PRESIDE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Stimulate the knowledge & love of gardening, to aid in the protection of native trees, plants & birds, to encourage civic beauty, and to improve & protect the quality of the environment through programs and action in the fields of conservation and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

The portland garden club is a volunteer nonprofit organization comprised of 333 members throughout the portland, Oregon area. The club actively maintains the clubhouse and surrounding gardens for the benefit of the general public to hold educational programs and monthly speaker series for the community. Books & subscriptions on plants/gardens and conservation are also available to the public. Pgc members passionately devote our energies and expertise to a wide array of projects in our community. Our flower shows, monthly speaker programs, and funding through grants, along with our hands-on work parties in community gardens, help us to fulfill our mission.

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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,556.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 63.7%; rating input score 64; 45th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.2%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.57; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 41 of 41 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $422K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 41 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.