Bozeman Tenants United

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
922340669
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Bozeman, MT, USA
Phone
4065990663
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$156,486
Expenses
$114,060
Assets
$53,015

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • BENJAMIN PATRICK FINEGAN (Executive Dir.)
  • WILLIAM MARCHESE (Treasurer)
  • AMY ALBERT (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Bozeman tenants united is building a citywide tenant union, led by tenants, organizing to ensure that every bozmanite has a safe, accessible, and truly affordable home.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024 Bozeman Tenants United trained over 200 members of the public in community organizing skills, created and circulated educational materials on the housing crisis for the public, educated the public on and advocated for a right to legal counsel for people in Bozeman facing eviction, helped publicly launch the national Tenant Union Federation through planning with other tenant unions and a public zoom call, endorsed and supported 4 candidates for the Bozeman Study Commission, supported tenants in apartment buildings to know their rights as tenants and hold their landlords accountable to following these laws, and conducted dozens of one-on-one meetings with members of the public to refer them to legal resources.

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
Transfer-based 990-EZ. The 990-EZ reports grants or member benefits, but it does not separate enough spending to show the nonprofit’s full delivery mix.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.2%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.1%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0.2% of revenue deployed
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.