The Mountain Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550541323
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$600,340
Expenses
$401,291
Assets
$92,051
Liabilities
$76,021

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Walter Arensberg (Secretary)
  • Ruth Greenspan Bell (Trustee)
  • Richard Boucher (Trustee)

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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Advance the well- being of mountain people and conservation of mountain environments.

What it reported doing in 2019

South America - This program addresses water security and climate change adaptation in the Andes Mountains with local communities, government and universities. Our project in Mountain Ecosystem Based Adaptation shared lessons with Perus Ministry of Environment and contributed to the design of the SERNANP climate change adaptation strategy. Accomplishments included: training courses and production of videos to improve food availability for cattle as well as solutions to improve the management of native grasslands In northern Perus Piura region, studies of ethnobotany identifying the biochemical active principles of six promising medicinal plants; training farmers in the processing of medicinal plants; pilot projects to produce potato botanical seed to replace use of virus infected tuber seeds. As a result of our work, highland communities in Piura obtained government support from the National Innovation Fund (PINIA) to conduct applied research in trout production.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 87% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.2%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 75%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $833.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 34.6%; rating input score 35; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 33.2%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.83; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -20.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.2% of revenue deployed · 75% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $301K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.