Lewis & Clark County 4-H Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364656468
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Helena, MT, USA
Phone
4064478346
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$120,208
Expenses
$120,883
Assets
$344,110
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

People named in this filing

  • KATIE GRADY-SELBY (PRES-COUNCIL)
  • MELISSA VELIN (VP-COUNCIL)
  • JENNE CAUDLE (SEC-COUNCIL)

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

The mission of the organization is to provide financial support to the lewis & clark county 4-h.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization works in conjunction with the lewis & clark county extension 4-h program to provide local 4-h members and leaders funds for assistance with and promotion of 4-h activities, participation in county, state, national events, and educational scholarships. The county extension is a part of the local county government and Montana state university extension 4-h program which is part of the national 4-h youth program of the u.s. Department of agriculture. All of these programs are linked into higher education through the land-grant university in each state.the foundation funds a number of activities to the 4-h members and leaders in lewis & clark co including but not limited to: achievement awards, chaperones, citizenship seminar, Montana 4-h congress, family assistance, Montana 4-h foundation, national Montana 4-h congress, national shooting sports, rec lab, scholarships, shooting sports instructor training, state leaders forum and teen ambassador program.during the 2024/25 fiscal year, the organization had 429 members and 47 active projects and 17 active clubs.

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 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.

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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.1%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 54.6%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.6%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.85; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.1% of revenue deployed · 54.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $66K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.