USGBC - Montana Chapter

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262533026
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Helena, MT, USA
Phone
4064475050
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,349
Expenses
$31,155
Assets
$22,167
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ARIAN BLOOMFIELD (President)
  • JACOB AUGENSTEIN (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • AGNES POHL (Director)
  • CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON (Director)
  • HEATHER HIGINBOTHAM (Director)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's purpose is to

What it reported doing in 2014

The usgbc Montana chapter promotes balance of social, economic, and environmental stewardship in Montana by leading and educating about green building practices that will create healthy and sustainable communities in which to live, work, and play. Expenses include costs of education through various training events, pulic outreach, and sponsorship of activities and organizations that are in line with the chapter's mission. The annual meeting was held in big sky, mt including a green building tour. The chapter also organized a leed ga boot camp training seminar to prepare aspiring leed accredited professionals for the leed ga exam. Members also have access to current sustainable design topics through our website. The Montana chapter also organized a sustainable bulding awards program, with awards being presented at the 2015 annual summit. Estimates of people impacted through our programs, website, and collaborations total over 300-350.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -33.4%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 52.6% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.