Humanities Montana

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237357909
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Missoula, MT, USA
Phone
4062436022
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,136,799
Expenses
$796,186
Assets
$687,078
Liabilities
$21,595

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Jill Baker (Executive Dir. thru 10/2025): $115,914 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Humanities Montana serves communities through stories and conversation. We offer experiences that nurture imagination and ideas by speaking to Montanans diverse history, literature, and philosophy.

What it reported doing in 2024

SPEAKERS BUREAU - Humanities Montana's Speakers Bureau, consisting of Montana Conversations, and Speakers in the Schools, connected communities across Montana with scholars, historians, authors, tribal educators, and other humanities practitioners. During FY2025, the program completed 108 bookings, resulting in 150 presentations that reached 7,989 participants statewide. Programs were presented in libraries, museums, schools, and community organizations, with 67% occurring in rural communities, including American Indian communities. Following the April 2, 2025 termination of Humanities Montana's General Operating Support grant, 46 Montana Conversations programs and 31 Speakers in the Schools visits were canceled, reducing statewide programming until partial federal funding was restored in June 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 29.2%; rating input score 29
  • Program expense ratio: 41%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 43%; rating input score 43; 28th 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: 8 of 8 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: 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: 30%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.6%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 29.2% of revenue deployed · 41% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $326K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $116K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls 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: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 43/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.