Balsam Mountain Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
562217688
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Sylva, NC, USA
Phone
8286311060
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$570,078
Expenses
$470,014
Assets
$1,283,963
Liabilities
$325

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michael Wall (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Michael Wall (Executive Director): $108,750 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 mission of the Balsam Mountain Trust is the stewardship of the natural and cultural resources on Balsam Mountain Preserve and the southern Blue Ridge Mountain region, achieved through effective land management practices, scientific research and environmental education. The Balsam Mountain Trust inspires people to be responsible stewards of the natural and cultural resources of the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains through education and conservation leadership.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Trust continues its efforts to monitor and improve the ecosystem health of the Balsam Mountain Preserve. One of our highest priorities is to maintain the integrity of the health of the Balsam Mountain conservation easement lands. Highlights of 2025 include the cataloging of 57 bird species in the third year of a three-year survey, continued removal of multiflora rose from on the Preserves natural heritage sites, treatment of 33 hemlock trees on the Preserve to fight the invasive wooly adelgid, and a completion of a resurvey and recommended management interventions for a natural heritage area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 60.7%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.6%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.73; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.1%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52% of revenue deployed · 60.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $285K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $109K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.