Park County Environmental Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363699660
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Livingston, MT, USA
Phone
4062220723
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,284,790
Expenses
$1,118,340
Assets
$970,837
Liabilities
$33,021

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WENDY RILEY (President)
  • SEABRING DAVIS (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • MAX HJORTSBERG (Managing Dir): $120,115 total reported compensation
  • ERICA LIGHTHISER (Managing Dir): $117,140 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

PCEC works to protect the land, water, air, wildlife and foster a resilient future for Yellowstone's Northern Gateway.

What it reported doing in 2025

Protect and Advocate for Healthy Ecosystems: Park County Environmental Council (PCEC) protected the land, water, air, and wildlife of Yellowstones Northern Gateway by advancing conservation policies, responsible land-use planning, and wildlife coexistence initiatives. PCEC worked with community members to oppose a proposed large-scale resort development in the Suce Creek area near the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness. PCEC promoted science-based wildlife management, including efforts to reduce wolf hunting pressure near Yellowstone National Park and strengthen bear coexistence practices in Park County and Livingston. PCEC also partnered on Indigenous and community oral history projects to elevate diverse perspectives on land stewardship. Through advocacy, PCEC advanced protections for grizzlies, bison, wolves, pollinators, and other native species.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.4%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 74.4%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.4% of revenue deployed · 74.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $832K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.