The Giving Tree of Park County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
934204078
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Livingston, MT, USA
Phone
4062230701
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Gift Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,974
Expenses
$5,000
Assets
$8,656
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DALE HOPKINS (VICE CHAIR)
  • MAAIKE MIDDLETON (CHAIR)
  • LORI PAPPERT (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The giving tree of park county partners with local schools to provide year-round assistance to children and families in need of love and support, fulfilling wishes, and offering essential items through anonymous community generosity. Our mission is to foster hope, joy and the spirit of giving, while strengthening family bonds, and ensuring every child has a chance to thrive.

What it reported doing in 2025

We launched our official website, givingtreeofparkcounty.org, making it easier for supporters to learn about our mission, donate, and stay involved. Though still under development, the website reflects our commitment to transparency and accessibility. Following our 501(c)(3) designation, we received an increase in monetary donations, allowing us to expand beyond the holiday season. We now offer year-round support in collaboration with local schools, helping meet urgent needs such as warm clothing and essential supplies for children in crisis. Program highlights: 1.school partnerships: we work directly with schools in arrowhead, gardiner, cooke city, pine creek, and shields valley. Teachers and nurses identify families in need. 2. Confidential and respectful outreach: families remain anonymous. Caregivers provide details about each child's needs and preferences. 3. Sponsor matching: local sponsors shop for both practical items (e.g., socks, pajamas) and fun gifts, ensuring a thoughtful, personalized experience. 4. Community engagement: we partnered with park electric to provide heating assistance and with the park county sheriff's office to deliver gifts, building positive community relationships. Impact statements from families: "they loved them it was such a wonderful balance between useful and fun gifts. Thank you" "it was like they had personal shoppers. It was fulfilling for them and me. Thank u again" we are proud to serve park county families and remain dedicated to fostering dignity, warmth, and community connection through every act of giving.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.9%; rating input score 29
  • Program expense ratio: 63.3%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 54.4%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.73; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.8% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 87.1% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 105.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.9% of revenue deployed · 63.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 29/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.