Shane Mcconkey Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274674949
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Olympic Valley, CA, USA
Phone
5305835275
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$230,365
Expenses
$208,849
Assets
$637,413
Liabilities
$3,953

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHAHRAZADE MCCONKEY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHAHRAZADE MCCONKEY (PRESIDENT): $50,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The shane mcconkey foundation was founded in recognition of the worldwide community of skiers, adventurers and everyday people who share a passion for life. The foundation honors those who inspire positive change in the world and the life of others. Shane mcconkey altered the paths of countless friends, acquaintances and strangers through his accomplishments, generous spirit, and his positive outlook on life. He was an innovator, a goofball, a friend, a husband and a father but his zest for life carried into his deep appreciation for the environment and living creatures. Goal of the foundation is twofold: to carry on shane mcconkey's legacy through random acts of kindness and charitable giving and to inspire others to make a difference in the world at large.

What it reported doing in 2025

Eco-challenge: working with schools to create eco-friendly solutions to an environmental problem and encourage and inspire our youth to help protect our environment. Of these grants 34,800 was directly related to the eco challenge and 21,666 was for other related programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.
  • 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.9%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 42.7%; rating input score 43; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.3%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.05; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.9%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.9% of revenue deployed · 56.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $117K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.