Houston Arboretum & Nature Center
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 741587880
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Houston, TX, USA
- Phone
- 7136818433
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Botanical Gardens, Arboreta and Botanical Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,435,058
- Expenses
- $3,618,974
- Assets
- $8,213,733
- Liabilities
- $642,992
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Sam Pyne (President)
- Andrew Abendshein (Vice President)
- Ruth Flournoy (Vice President)
- Andrew Hull (Vice President)
- Steve Newton (Vice President)
- Allen Rustay (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Debbie Markey (Executive Dir.): $156,315 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 mission of the Houston Arboretum & Nature Center is to provide education about the natural environment to people of all ages and to protect and enhance the Arboretum as a haven and sanctuary for native plants and animals.
What it reported doing in 2024
Educational programs for people of all ages on a variety of topics, singly and in series, during school breaks and on week-ends. Through advanced adult education Houston Arboretum also offers educational programs for related fields, professional groups and area naturalists and conservationists. These programs serve as a gathering agent for professional organizations for education meetings, seminars and workshops.
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. 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: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 62
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 69
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 69.8%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 81.2%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 18.4%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.27; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -12.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 69.8% of revenue deployed · 81.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 27 of 27 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 28 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Board meeting minutes documented not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.