Butte Native Wellness Center
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 862382508
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Butte, MT, USA
- Phone
- 4067820461
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,221,316
- Expenses
- $2,129,655
- Assets
- $9,836,942
- Liabilities
- $6,222,082
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TINA RANDALL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- TINA RANDALL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $164,146 total reported compensation
- DANIELLE TINSLEY (ADULT GERIATRIC PC NP): $150,530 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Personnel management has been established setting forth the standards and clarifying the rights and responsibilities of the employer and employees. It is to provide personnel policies and procedures which will best serve the needs of the butte native wellness center (bnwc) board of directors, the staff of the origination and the native american community. Employees are asked no less than excellent service in their jobs with the promise of equal treatment in return from the bnwc board of directors. It is to treat all staff with respect and dignity, and to ensure that the staff has the support of the bnwc board of directors.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization provides native american indians with counseling and referral services for chemically dependent individuals, educational and mental health services are also provided.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 93% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 61
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 69
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.4%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 33.9%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.62; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.8%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 33.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 26.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 62.4% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $164K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $476K reported
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.