Tenth Mountain Division Hut Assn Inc 10Th Mountain

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742252484
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Aspen, CO, USA
Phone
9709254554
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Winter Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,871,375
Expenses
$1,894,541
Assets
$7,070,136
Liabilities
$2,526,115

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BENJAMIN H DODGE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • SUZANNE WHITE (Vice President)
  • PETER ERICSON (President)
  • KIRSTEN NEWHARD (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • BENJAMIN H DODGE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $155,850 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 purpose of tenth (10th) mountain is to plan, finance, build and manage, for public use, a mountain hut system that promotes understanding and appreciation of the natural mountain environment while developing individual self-reliance.

What it reported doing in 2024

Planning, developing, constructing and operating a hut system designed to provide a quality outdoor experience for backcountry enthusiasts as well as maintaining a reservation system for the huts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 81% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.5%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th 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: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.2%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.73; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.5% of revenue deployed · 85.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.3M reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.