Hawaii Tropical Botanical Garden

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
990185842
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Papaikou, HI, USA
Phone
8089645233
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Botanical Gardens, Arboreta and Botanical Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,597,312
Expenses
$2,825,276
Assets
$10,743,036
Liabilities
$323,385

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DEBARA J LUTKENHOUSE-FROST (EXECUTIVE DI): $384,561 total reported compensation
  • DAN LUTKENHOUSE JR (PHILANTHROPY): $170,605 total reported compensation
  • GREGORY EWALD (GENERAL MANA): $165,317 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To protect and preserve the ecology, flora, fauna, and marine life of the onomea valley and its coastline and coastal waters. The garden is dedicated to the collection and display of the world's tropical plants, and to the education of both children and adults.

What it reported doing in 2025

To maintain for public use a botanical and zoological garden, and museum collection to preserve and study native hawaiian indigenous and exotic plants, animals, and artifacts. The garden will also include a gift shop that sells books, plants, and other items related to nature, plants, native hawaiian species, and exotic flora. To teach and educate the public about plants and their values to mankind, educate and demonstrate to the public the value and necessity of protecting the rain forests of the world as well as all of our worldly botanical and zoological resources.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 67
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.5%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 79.7%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.5%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.8; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.5% of revenue deployed · 79.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $385K · 5 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.