National Museum of Forest Service History

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810454269
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Missoula, MT, USA
Phone
4065416374
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,477,428
Expenses
$765,561
Assets
$21,550,796
Liabilities
$123,864

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TOM THOMPSON (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID M STACK (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LISA TATE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA TATE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $89,541 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To share the rich history and stories of america's conservation legacy.

What it reported doing in 2025

Construction of the national conservation legacy and education center (the center). The center, when completed, will be open to the public year-round. The center will provide a centralized national facility for archives, official and personal memorabilia portraying the entire scope of forest service activities, including research, state and private forestry, international forestry, and the protection and management of the entire national forest system. The museum's support comes primarily from private contributions, government grants, membership dues, and in-kind donations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 14.3%; rating input score 14
  • Program expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $373.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 88.2%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 28.15; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.8% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 14.3% of revenue deployed · 90.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 27 of 27 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $694K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 28 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.