Charture Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030384966
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Jackson, WY, USA
Phone
3077338687
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$78,721
Expenses
$103,820
Assets
$180,165
Liabilities
$338,177

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JONATHAN SCHECHTER (EXECUTIVE DI): $60,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The charture institute helps communities and the natural environments in which they are located co-thrive.

What it reported doing in 2024

The charture institute is a jackson hole, Wyoming-based think tank focused on co-thriving, the state in which both human communities and the environments in which they lie simultaneously flourish. Places such as resort or national park gateway communities have been growing and changing rapidly over the last 2-3 decades, raising concerns about whether such communities can sustain their essential qualities. Charture's mission is to help these communities understand what's happening to them, and act to identify and sustain their essential qualities, both human and environmental. Charture's efforts focus in four inter-connected areas: research, teaching, actions, and funding. Linking together all of these efforts together is solid, fact-based information. Charture grounds all of its efforts in objective, data-driven, nonpartisan and non-ideological research and analysis.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.8%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 73.1%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -31.9%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.74; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.88; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 57.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.6% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.8% of revenue deployed · 73.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $76K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.