Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage
Legal name: Dancing Rabbit Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 431762592
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2007
- Location
- Rutledge, MO, United States
- Phone
- 660-883-5511
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $237,270
- Expenses
- $152,241
- Assets
- $212,372
- Liabilities
- $17,827
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Daniel Pugh (President)
People named in this filing
- Karen Gillooly (Secretary)
- Sue Ann Kortkamp (Director)
- Steven Shapiro (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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage (DR) works to build a healthy, non-exploitative and vibrant alternative to mainstream society—supporting ecologically sustainable living and community-building through outreach and education. Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage takes a strong stance in support of healthy boundaries, consent, and open communication. However, we are not immune to instances of inappropriate behavior, and experienced a situation involving childhood sexual abuse in 2019. This crisis shook the community and was a source of heartbreak and collective trauma for those who lived here at the time. Those involved or implicated no longer live in the area, but there were important lessons for us as a community striving for an openly inclusive and supportive culture. For details on how this may affect your visit to Dancing Rabbit for your family, we offer this summary. Boundaries, Consent, and...
What it reported doing in 2024
Eco-Village Tours / Short Term Visitors/ Outreach & Research: The organization offers several options for the public to understand examples of functioning sustainable lifestyles. This is achieved through offering short tours of homes and communal facilities, hosting participants for one to three days, and talks given at remote locations. Participants are able to see or hear about our alternative building methods, organic gardens, renewable energy, water catchment, etc.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 49
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 67
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 38.2%; rating input score 38
- Program expense ratio: 57.3%; rating input score 57
- Fundraising efficiency: $86.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 59.5%; rating input score 60; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 35.8%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.39; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 24.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 23.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 38.2% of revenue deployed · 57.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $87K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.