The Ruth Bancroft Garden Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680310041
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Walnut Creek, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9259449352
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Botanical Gardens, Arboreta and Botanical Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,268,806
- Expenses
- $2,395,423
- Assets
- $5,068,295
- Liabilities
- $514,000
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Roger Ravenstad (Executive Director)
- Helen Josephine (President)
- Christina Sammartino-Ascencio (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Roger Ravenstad (Executive Director): $150,104 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 Ruth Bancroft Garden, Inc. is a foremost example of the art of garden design with drought-tolerant plants, and it is known as one of the finest dry gardens in the world. See additional information on Schedule O.
What it reported doing in 2025
The garden is open for tours, events and plant sales. There are about 47,000 visitors annually. The garden also offers an array of workshops, classes and webinars for the home gardener and horticultural/green industry professionals. These programs serve over 2,000 adults and children.in summary, the ruth bancroft gardens three principal activities include:(1) public garden (open for tours),(2) retail nursery (sale of plants and garden accessories), and(3) education (tours, workshops and webinars for adults and children).
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 60% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 77.2%; rating input score 77
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.12; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.