Monforton School Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202380803
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Bozeman, MT, USA
Phone
4065483611
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$97,084
Expenses
$76,230
Assets
$219,991

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BERT BARTLE (President)
  • ANDY ROWSE (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • BERT BARTLE (President)
  • ANDY ROWSE (Vice President)
  • TARA RIGG (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Monforton School Foundation (a 501(c)3 nonprofitorganization) believes in the importance ofexcellence in education. As a result of unpredictablefunding and ever-changing needs in publiceducation, the Monforton School Foundationserves as the funding mechanism to develop, foster, and encourage excellence in education atMonforton School.

What it reported doing in 2024

Develop, foster, and encourage excellence in education. Currently through atrs and music, athletics, experiential learning, curriculum and instruction, family and child assistance, technology and playground development.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.2%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.5%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.89; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.2% of revenue deployed · 90.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.