Hallberg Butterfly Gardens
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 911767178
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2016
- Location
- Sebastopol, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7078233420
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Botanical Gardens, Arboreta and Botanical Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $252,377
- Expenses
- $133,083
- Assets
- $2,126,245
- Liabilities
- $2,610
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DON MAHONEY (President)
People named in this filing
- DON MAHONEY (President)
- LEAH BRORSTROM (Board Member)
- KATHY TRAFTON (Secretary)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Foster the breeding, propagation, protection, preservation and scientific study of the lepidoptera order by operation of one or more experimental butterfly habitats. Provide education and information centers.
What it reported doing in 2025
The hallberg butterfly gardens offered the following activites during the year.self-guided tours were offered by appointment spring through fall. There were 1,007 people who came and toured the gardens including 648 children from local schools. 728 butterflies from 24 different species were identified by guests and volunteers who came to the gardens.the gardens held its 5th annual moth night in july to celebrate national moth week.32 people came to learn the importance of moths in the ecosystems. Throughout the evening the participants helped to document and id the moths found in the gardens at 2 uv light stations used to attract moths and other insects. There were 67 observations from 34 different species of moths, beetles and flies.every first sunday of the month guests were invited to draw and paint observations in the gardens.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- 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
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 liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 60
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 69.8%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 47.3%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.98; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 69.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $93K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.