Hughson Arboretum and Gardens
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 272140566
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Hughson, CA, USA
- Phone
- 2095415259
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Botanical Gardens, Arboreta and Botanical Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $74,148
- Expenses
- $73,153
- Assets
- $111,362
- Liabilities
- $612
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHN CASSAZA (President)
People named in this filing
- SALLY BOLGER (Director)
- DIMPLE KUNIYANA (Director)
- LANA SLOAN (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Design, plant and maintain an arboretum and garden in hughson, California to the extent of practicable, sound environmental and ecologically compatible practices.
What it reported doing in 2025
Operate the arboretum and garden in an environmentally sound manner, which is composed of native or historic trees along with other kinds of trees and plants.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78.8%; rating input score 79
- Program expense ratio: 79.9%; rating input score 80
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.3%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.52; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 78.8% of revenue deployed · 79.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $58K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.