Crotched Mountain Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020222168
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Manchester, NH, USA
Phone
6036687584
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,973,944
Expenses
$2,607,974
Assets
$41,328,380
Liabilities
$4,279,028

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Edward Olney (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Edward Olney (President & CEO): $302,074 total reported compensation
  • Kevin Harte (VP Advancement): $149,475 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 Crotched Mountain Foundation is the parent organization of the affiliated programs of Crotched Mountain which creates opportunities for children and adults with disabilities and chronic conditions to live, learn and thrive in their own communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

The core purpose of CMFkids is to elevate and build special education capacity in public schools for children with complex needs who reside in economically disadvantaged communities within NH. CMFkids currently provides special education partnership awards for eligible school districts within Coos, Grafton, Cheshire and Sullivan counties. The interest of CMFkids is to fund initiatives that develop sustainable special education programs and services in the areas of inclusive education, family engagement in the IEP and special education services, vocational training and employment, transition planning and services, teacher and paraprofessional training and development, and overall student achievement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.4%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 68.4%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 98.5%; rating input score 99; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.3%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.85; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.4% of revenue deployed · 68.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $302K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $867K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 filed related-organization links
  • 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.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.