Dallas Arboretum and Botanical Garden
Legal name: Dallas Arboretum and Botanical Society Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237375815
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Dallas, Texas, US
- Phone
- 214-515-6615
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Botanical Gardens, Arboreta and Botanical Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $32,226,986
- Expenses
- $31,318,920
- Assets
- $124,329,700
- Liabilities
- $22,987,452
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
81 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Sabina Carr (President & CEO)
- Mary Brinegar (President & CEO (THRU 1/12/24))
Highest reported compensation
- Sabina Carr (President & CEO): $442,873 total reported compensation
- Gary Doubrava Jr (CFO): $221,024 total reported compensation
- Dustin Miller (VP Programs & Learning): $216,562 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 Dallas Arboretum and Botanical Garden's mission is to build and maintain a public venue that promotes the art of gardening, horticulture, and environmental stewardship.
What it reported doing in 2024
Operated a public botanical garden open to all, welcoming approximately 1,200,000 visitors in 2024 to experience and learn about a diverse collection of plants and trees. Educated and inspired public interest in art, horticulture, and the earth and life sciences through displays, lectures, workshops, and interactive programs, many serving underprivileged youth.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 61
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 57
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 79.9%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.8%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.97; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 14 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 78% of revenue deployed · 79.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 69 of 69 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $25M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $443K · 81 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.3M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.