Mouse Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133973196
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6465746446
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,714,566
Expenses
$1,869,775
Assets
$1,912,071
Liabilities
$215,105

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LARRY LIEBERMAN (CEO & BOARD OF DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LARRY LIEBERMAN (CEO & BOARD OF DIRECTOR): $265,398 total reported compensation
  • CHELSEA FORMICA (CHIEF OF STAFF): $153,097 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mouse, a New York city-based nonprofit, empowers students and educators with the knowledge and skills to excel in ai, computer science, and technology-driven careers.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mouse's ai league program is a comprehensive digital learning program that emphasizes ai education and real-world application. Students work in teams to design a project addressing a social need while gaining hands-on experience in ai engineering fundamentals, understanding how ai systems work, how models are trained, and how text and images are generated. Co-designed with carnegie mellon university, the ai fundamentals unit also introduces key machine learning concepts and fosters critical conversations about ai ethics, safety, and bias. Alongside this ai-focused learning, students develop skills in user research, ux/ui design, prototyping, and branding with support from industry experts. We conclude the program by presenting their final projects at a school-based showcase. In fy25, mouse trained 1,190 teachers in computer science, ai engineering, digital media literacy, and citizenship. These trainings consisted of 84 professional development events (304 hours of training).new for school year 2024-25, mouse trained teachers in rockland and suffolk counties under two New York state learning and technology grants. Mouse also continued to implement a multi-year New York state computer science and digital fluency standards grant in 18 school districts in partnership with rockland county boces, western suffolk county boces, and the longwood and william floyd school districts. Mouse create (create.mouse.org) is our unique learning management system, with over 200 tech courses and projects. Mouse's new "design with purpose" course consists of over 25 hours of adaptable iste-aligned curricular content, including ai engineering, human-centered design, ux/ui skills, and hands-on design software training. Each activity has lesson plans for teachers, step-by-step student-facing teaching materials, and work submission steps for students.nyc citywide "emoti-con" technology challenge the ai league program concludes with students competing in the nyc, digital media and technology challenge and career day (known to students as emoti-con). The 17th annual emoti-con was held on may 29, 2025, at amazon's headquarters in manhattan. Students from all five boroughs met with 88 tech industry professionals to explore tech career opportunities and receive feedback on the ai league student projects. Students explored a wide variety of industries and technologies, developing personal connections to guide their academic and professional journeys. Winning student project teams received awards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.9%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 76.6%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.1%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.02; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.9% of revenue deployed · 76.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $265K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.