Mundi Project
Legal name: The Mundi Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 383734621
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2007
- Location
- Salt Lake City, UT, United States
- Phone
- 801-487-8594
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Music
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $239,581
- Expenses
- $227,217
- Assets
- $249,642
- Liabilities
- $61,423
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- IVON HUERTA (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- CODY GOETZ (EXECUTIVE DI): $46,910 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Elevating individuals and communities by expanding access to music education and experiences for all. Mission and Values of Mundi Project Mundi Project actively breaks down socioeconomic and generational barriers by providing quality music experiences for all. and Values of Mundi Project Mundi Project actively breaks down socioeconomic and generational barriers by providing quality music experiences for all. Vision. Vision Mundi Project is committed to creating access to music across the state of Utah. High-quality instruments, engaging education opportunities, and unique music events & workshops are used as a conduit for creating societal change. We provide music opportunities that bridge socioeconomic and generational barriers, and seek to empower our participants to find their voices and gain confidence as they work with others learning instruments and performing. Our Values.
What it reported doing in 2024
Harmony hub - harmony hub provides pay-what-you-can group music classes in piano and voice, with a focus on community building and confidence through music. In 2024, 310 unique learners participated in 516 class sessions across four community sites. Classes served predominantly low-income, diverse communities, with full scholarships provided to all who needed them.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 77.8%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 82%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $13.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 95%; rating input score 95; 55th 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: 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: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5.2%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.1; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 20.6%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 77.8% of revenue deployed · 82% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $186K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $47K · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.