Move Mountain View

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822012198
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Mountain View, CA, USA
Phone
6508610181
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,049,649
Expenses
$2,060,051
Assets
$518,066
Liabilities
$93,226

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN LEONG (PRESIDENT/ME)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMBER STIME (MEMBER/DIREC): $168,556 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Move mountain view is an organization dedicated to alleviating the problem of homelessness and engaging the community in assisting the underprivileged among us.

What it reported doing in 2025

Move mountain view is a nonprofit organization based in mountain view, California dedicated to assisting individuals and families experiencing homelessness, particularly those living in vehicles. The organization operates safe parking programs that provide a secure place for people to sleep while receiving case management and housing support. Founded in 2016 and operational since 2018, move mountain view has developed one of the most established vehicle-based shelter programs in santa clara county. The program operates multiple safe parking sites and serves approximately 200 individuals nightly. Through case management, housing navigation, and partnerships with community organizations, move helps participants transition from vehicle dwelling into stable housing while restoring dignity, safety, and community support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 96% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.7%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $59.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 40.9% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.7% of revenue deployed · 79.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $169K · 5 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $116K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.