Mount Rushmore National Memorial Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460258947
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Rapid City, SD, USA
Phone
6053418883
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,289,509
Expenses
$2,962,230
Assets
$21,739,805
Liabilities
$88,416

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Eileen Rossow (President)
  • Marnie Herrmann (Past President)
  • Rich Kinzley (Vice President)
  • Diana Nielsen (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Diana Nielsen (CEO): $127,892 total reported compensation
  • Stephanie Helms (Director of Philanthropy): $107,510 total reported compensation
  • Jackie Spreizer (Director of Finance): $81,898 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See Schedule O.

What it reported doing in 2025

In keeping with its mission to Protect Preserve and Promote Mount Rushmore National Memorial the Society provides funding to enhance the visitor experience and provide education and interpretive programming to the public about Mount Rushmore in partnership with the National Park Service. Through the operation of the Mount Rushmore Bookstores fundraising and community outreach and engagement the Society provides funding and support for the following projects: Mount Rushmore interpretive ranger intern program school bus parking and transportation scholarships which allow children from local schools to attend educational opportunities at the Memorial historical and cultural performances exhibits and demonstrations Junior Ranger program and supplies enhancement of ranger visitor information stations development of original publications to be sold at the Memorial hosting of local community outreach events publication of materials for local visitor centers and providing interpretive program supplies library acquisitions and meeting space for park service employee education.

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 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 70.9%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 41st 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.9%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.34; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 70.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $128K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 46 of 48 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.