The Birmingham Botanical Society Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630495111
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Birmingham, AL, USA
Phone
2054143950
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,960,637
Expenses
$2,690,428
Assets
$29,514,971
Liabilities
$46,453

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

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS W UNDERWOOD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS W UNDERWOOD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $229,332 total reported compensation
  • STEPHANIE BANKS (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $141,816 total reported compensation
  • PENELOPE HARTLINE (DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT): $135,181 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The friends advance public knowledge and appreciation of plants, gardens, and the environment through education, volunteerism, and assistance to a public botanical garden.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education and community engagementthe friends' educational offerings are intentionally inclusive and designed to engage participants of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds. The friends provide free, hands-on, curriculum-based science programming to thousands of area k6 students each year. Additional offerings include summer camps; stem teacher training; and adult classes, lectures, and workshops related to botany, horticulture, and environmental stewardship. The friends also maintain a public horticultural library with more than 6,000 circulating titles. Community engagement includes partnerships with organizations that celebrate diverse cultural traditions and encourage horticultural endeavors, such as cultural festivals and an annual community awards program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.1%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 62.1%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.1%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.97; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.1% of revenue deployed · 62.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $229K · 32 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.