Mountain Journal Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821846471
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Helena, MT, USA
Phone
4062078727
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$149,208
Expenses
$410,281
Assets
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

People named in this filing

  • HANK PERRY (Chair)
  • JOANNE DORNAN (Vice Chair)
  • SHANE DOYLE (Treasurer)

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

Mountain journal is a powerful voice for public interest journalism and is devoted to celebrating and defending public land heritage and the wildlife of the greater yellowstone ecosystem. Our articles are free and on-line for all to access.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mountain journal is an independent on-line publication created to inform and expand public discourse on critical and timely conservation issues in the greater yellowstone ecosystem (gye) including impacts across the northern rockies. Serving as a journalistic watch dog and celebrant of the gye, mojo is published on the website mountainjournal.org, facebook, and instagram. Mojo's most read and commented on, and most shared pieces include articles on chronic wasting disease, impacts from climate change, water issues, wild fires, ethics of hunting, unplanned growth, impacts of increased outdoor recreation and topics around yellowstone national park. We have captured the attention of decision makers at the highest levels. They are paying attention to what happens in the gye and the media outlet they trust is mountain journal.

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
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Sustainability: 2
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 45%; rating input score 45

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -175%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -29.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 45% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $184K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.