Science Mill

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460600789
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2022
Location
Johnson City, TX, USA
Phone
8442636405
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Museum, Museum Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,078,700
Expenses
$2,603,400
Assets
$3,922,884
Liabilities
$611,121

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PETER CLAFFEY (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • PETER CLAFFEY (CEO): $158,869 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of science mill is to develop and operate a science museum in johnson city, Texas for the benefit and education of the public.

What it reported doing in 2024

Science mill opened it doors to visitors of all ages in february 2015. The science mill is a place of discovery where the entire family experiences interactive learning and creative thinking. It is a destination for the greater community as a gathering place and open forum to present and discuss scientific topics, especially those of high relevance to the area. With fun, exciting and interactive exhibits and programs, the science mill supports formal education entities with a focus on middle and high school students, to help expand their understanding of science, spark their curiosity and inspire them towards an interest in careers in science, technology, engineering and mathmatics (stem). The science mill's distinctive approach focuses on strengthening the student's connection to the world of science and to inspire students to pursue life-long careers as scientists, engineers, researchers and technology leaders of tomorrow.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.1%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.51; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.