Montana Queer Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 994866628
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Helena, MT, USA
- Phone
- 3603335955
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Mental Health Treatment F31 Psychiatric, Mental Health Hospital
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $187,254
- Expenses
- $91,456
- Assets
- $97,825
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Ace Reba-Jones (Executive Director)
- Evan Reba-Jones (President)
People named in this filing
- Nicholas Stevens (Programs Manager)
- Ace Reba-Jones (Executive Director)
- Evan Reba-Jones (President)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
At MQA, our mission is to uplift the safety, identity, and well-being of LGBTQIA2s+ and BIPOC people across rural and tribal Montana by providing culturally responsive advocacy and care and community-driven programs that build long-term relationships and resilience.
What it reported doing in 2025
Common Ground Housing and Crisis Financial Assistance: Common Ground Housing advances housing stability through a housing justice lens rooted in dignity, safety, and self determination. We support people who are most often locked out of stable housing options in rural and frontier Montana, including Indigenous people living on or off reservations, people living with HIV, and people living with chronic illness or disability, including elders and people on fixed incomes.We see the most urgent housing harms up close. Eviction threats. Landlord retaliation. Unsafe or inaccessible units. Utility shutoffs. Application barriers. Discrimination that blocks people from housing even when they have income or assistance. These crises are intensified by scarcity, distance, and limited local supports.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 49
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 35.4%; rating input score 35
- Program expense ratio: 72.5%; rating input score 72
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 51.2%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 39%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 35.4% of revenue deployed · 72.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $66K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.