SheJumps / Alpine Finishing School — Partnership Assessment

§1Summary recommendation

SheJumps offered GEA Alliance a single free scholarship spot in their 2027 Alpine Finishing School (April 24 – May 1, 2027, Selkirk Lodge BC, presented by Arc'teryx). Taken at face value, this is a ~$3–4K in-kind contribution from a $1.2M organization with 7 FTE and a 14-person board, in exchange for our brand association on a marquee program that they otherwise own.

That trade is lopsided in SheJumps' favor, not ours. The fix is not to accept gratefully, and it is not to decline defensively. The fix is to convert this from a token charity exchange into a strategic foothold in the women's-outdoor-philanthropy network that GEA needs to traverse in years 2–4 of the $170K → $900K plan.

The single highest-leverage term is a warm-introduction trade to one of Arc'teryx, Nordica, or Ikon Pass. If SheJumps will commit to that in writing, accept. If they will not, decline with a handshake and look for a more reciprocal first collaboration.

Confidence: Moderate. The recommendation is robust to most data we couldn't access; the main thing that could flip it is if LOWA, Fjällräven, Title IX, or Deuter is already in active partnership conversations with SheJumps (see §7).

The more durable deliverable is the GEA Partnership Decision Framework in §4, which Sunny asked for and which will be reused on the next 5+ partnership asks (LOWA pull-throughs, Gore-Tex, the Swiss retailer, Deuter expansion).

---

§2SheJumps profile

2.1   Identity and size

• Legal: SheJumps, 501(c)(3) nonprofit, EIN 68-0662227, founded 2007, HQ Salt Lake City, UT.
• ED / Co-founder: Claire Smallwood (2025 comp: $112,901 per 990).
• Staffing: 7 full-time staff distributed across Salt Lake, Portland, Denver, Pacific NW + 1 contractor. Not a single-office org.
• Volunteer infrastructure: 10 national volunteers, 6 regional directors, 18 regional coordinators, 78 event coordinators. Heavy volunteer leverage — 88.9% of events are volunteer-led.

2.2   Five-year financial trajectory

From 990 filings via ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer:

Critical reading: FY25 is the first year of revenue contraction and a meaningful operating deficit. Net assets shrank ~41% in one year — runway is now ~2 months of expenses. They added headcount and program intensity ahead of revenue, which is a recognizable scale-up pattern but signals they are now in a fundraising-intensive year. This matters for the asymmetry calculation: a scrappy co-branded partner who brings credible scholar-of-color / scholar-of-grit stories is worth more to them right now than it would have been in FY23–24.

2.3   Revenue composition

Donations vs. program-service revenue:

Program-services revenue is declining in absolute dollars while the donations share climbs. The board's stated concern about "transparency on charitable impact" is well-founded: SheJumps is not a fee-for-service nonprofit converting tuition into scholarships — it is a donor-funded org running mostly free/subsidized events (72% of 2024-25 events were free or donation-based). That is a legitimate model, but it has a structural fragility: a single donor or sponsor turn would force program cuts. Worth a board-to-board conversation if we go deeper than a one-slot pilot.

2.4   Programs (with relevance to GEA)

2.5   Reach and impact (FY24-25)

• 2,753 women/girls served (in-person, online, guided).
• 153 events; 1,800+ programming hours.
• 72% of events free or donation-based.
• Self-reported community survey: 90% felt sense of community, 73% gained new skills, 79% gained confidence, 82% inspired to spend more time outdoors.

Caveat: No public demographic breakdown by income, race, or geography. The 2024-25 annual report announcement does not disclose distributional reach. For a board considering an alliance with them, this is a follow-up question, not a deal-breaker.

2.6   Governance

14-person board with deep outdoor-industry chops:

• Chair / Vice Chair: Stephanie Selin (Tencap Consulting), Rachelle Stanko (former REI & Nordstrom).
• Notable members: Karrie Blittersdorf (Burton Snowboards merchandising), Rachael Minucciani (Selkirk Sports, Director of Partnerships), Tania Lown-Hecht (Outdoor Alliance VP Comms & Strategy), Jordan Fisher (The Nature Conservancy).
• Geography: Distributed; not Salt Lake-only.

Reading: This is a board that has been recruited for industry access, not for big-mountain athletic credibility. It explains why their gold-tier sponsors are apparel/resort/optics brands (Arc'teryx, Nordica, Smith, Ikon) rather than mountaineering-specific brands. GEA's competitive advantage with LOWA / Fjällräven / Deuter is at the technical end of the spectrum where SheJumps is under-indexed.

2.7   Sponsor stack (full, FY24-25)

Crosswalk to GEA's anchor sponsors: LOWA, Fjällräven, Title IX, Deuter. Zero direct overlap. This is significant — it means the brand stacks are adjacent but distinct, and a "team-up" doesn't trip immediate sponsor jealousy. (Counter-risk: same donor universe — see §3.)

2.8   Alpine Finishing School (the actual offer)

• Dates: April 24 – May 1, 2027.
• Location: Selkirk Lodge, British Columbia — helicopter-accessed backcountry lodge.
• Presenting sponsor: Arc'teryx (top-of-funnel attribution will be Arc'teryx, not GEA, regardless of what we negotiate).
• Target: Advanced-to-expert backcountry skiers and splitboarders.
• Curriculum: Glacier travel, crevasse rescue, route planning, companion rescue, navigation, anchors, rappelling, belaying.
• Guides: Women ACMG (Canadian) certified guides.
• Historical price: $2,000 USD (2013) → $2,300 USD (2017). 2027 sticker price is undisclosed; reasonable estimate $3,000–$4,500 USD including heli, lodging, food, instruction.
• Selection criteria for the GEA slot: Not yet disclosed by SheJumps. We will need to negotiate this (see §6, term #4).

2.9   Strategic Plan 2025-2028 (the partnership context)

SheJumps' 2025-28 plan is qualitative, not quantitative. Four goals: refine program structure, expand geographic engagement, formalize volunteer leadership, build org sustainability. No public participant or revenue targets. The plan's most relevant signal to us is goal 4 — "diversify revenue streams (grants, individual/corporate donors, program revenue)." They're explicitly looking for new revenue partners. That is useful negotiating context: they have an incentive to convert this pilot into something bigger if it works.

---

§3Overlap and conflict analysis

3.1   Audience overlap

Reading: The advanced/expert big-mountain woman is GEA's flagship audience and is exactly who attends the Alpine Finishing School. There is a real possibility a top-of-funnel GEA prospect also sees and is hooked by SheJumps' program. Whether that's competition or referral depends on positioning — see §5.

3.2   Donor / sponsor pool conflict

Sponsor conflict (corporate dollars): Zero overlap with current SheJumps Gold/Silver/Bronze tiers vs. GEA anchor brands (LOWA, Fjällräven, Title IX, Deuter). LOWA, Fjällräven, and Deuter are technically in the same outdoor-women apparel/footwear/pack universe as Arc'teryx (Gold) and Mammut (Bronze) — but they have not been recruited by SheJumps. This is a structural opportunity for GEA: own the technical-mountaineering brand alliance while SheJumps owns broader outdoor apparel + resort.

Donor pool conflict (individual / foundation dollars): Real and material. The Clif Family Foundation, the Title IX-style women's-outdoor-philanthropy universe, and the LOWA / Fjällräven CSR pots are not infinite. SheJumps is ~7× GEA's revenue and has been in the donor pool 18 years longer. They are the gravity well. A high-profile co-marketing moment that puts both names side-by-side risks training donors to think "I gave to women-in-outdoors via SheJumps, I'm done." This is the single biggest invisible risk and is what the board's "visibility asymmetry" concern is actually pointing at.

Mitigation: Distinct positioning language in every shared asset. SheJumps = expanding participation. GEA Alliance = expanding access to big-mountain adventure and high-consequence terrain. These are different value props if we discipline the language.

3.3   Brand alignment with GEA anchor partners

Net: None of GEA's anchors are blocked. Arc'teryx-by-association is the only friction point, and it's manageable with one written clarification.

3.4   Governance / culture comfort

SheJumps' board is industry-recruited and operating at $1.2M revenue with deficit. They are professional but not at the scale where they will negotiate hard contracts for a one-scholarship pilot. The relationship will be informal. Risk: informal partnerships drift. Mitigation: document the terms in §6 in a short MOU even if both sides treat it as a handshake. A one-page MOU costs nothing and protects the brand if it goes sideways.

3.5   Exit cost

• Reputational exit cost — low. A 1-year pilot, 1 scholarship slot, no published multi-year agreement. We can non-renew without losing face.
• Brand exit cost — moderate-but-recoverable. Once we publicly co-brand a scholarship recipient with SheJumps, that story lives on the internet. Walking away in year 2 doesn't erase it. If SheJumps later embarrasses themselves (e.g., a sponsor scandal, leadership crisis), GEA inherits some adjacent reputational risk via search results.
• Strategic exit cost — low. No platform lock-in, no vendor dependency, no shared infrastructure.

---

§4GEA Partnership Decision Framework (reusable)

This is the deliverable Sunny asked us to lead with. Use this framework on the next 5+ partnership asks (LOWA pull-throughs, Gore-Tex, the Swiss retailer, Deuter expansion, and whatever else lands in Sunny's inbox). It is intentionally scorable — meaning future-Sunny, future-Founding-Engineer, or any board member can apply it without re-deriving the logic.

4.1   Scoring dimensions

Each dimension scored 0–5. Total 0–30. Higher = better fit.

4.2   Kill-switches (automatic decline regardless of score)

Any one of the following → decline:

1. Sponsor-conflict-in-anchor-tier: Partner is in active sponsorship conversations with LOWA, Fjällräven, Title IX, or Deuter at ≥$10K levels in the same activation window.
2. Direct competition for an anchor activation: Partner asks for a slot/visibility that displaces or weakens a contracted LOWA, Fjällräven, Title IX, or Deuter activation.
3. PII / safety infrastructure not in place: Partnership requires handling donor or applicant PII before GEA Sensitive drive + processes are stood up.
4. Calendar hits Sunny's off-grid window without delegable owner: Material decision window falls inside late May–mid-Aug 2027 and no GEA team member (Roxy, Angie, contractor) can own it independently.
5. Reversibility hard-block: Multi-year contractual lock-in (>12 months to exit cleanly) without break clause.
6. 501(c)(3) / compliance friction: Activity would jeopardize tax-exempt status (e.g., excessive UBIT exposure, lobbying drift, private benefit) without separate legal review.

4.3   Decision rules

Plus a tie-breaker rule for the 16–21 band: if the asymmetric-upside score is ≤ 2, the accept-with-terms must include at least one structural ask that fixes the asymmetry (e.g., reciprocal introduction, sponsor-channel access, naming-rights parity).

4.4   Required artifacts per decision

Whether accept, accept-with-terms, or decline, every partnership decision produces three documents (all filed on the relevant GEA drive):

1. One-page summary (the framework score, the decision, the one-sentence rationale) — this is the board read.
2. Terms or MOU (if accept/accept-with-terms) — one page, written, signed-or-emailed.
3. Sunset trigger (what would cause GEA to non-renew or exit) — bullet list, used at year-end review.

4.5   Decline script (for the soft "no")

The decline script is not a soft yes. It does the relational maintenance the board worried about (avoiding the "lack of collaboration" signal) without committing brand or dollars.

4.6   Time-to-decide budget

• Tier 1 ask (single program, <$5K value either direction): ≤ 1 Sunny-hour to decide; framework applied lightly.
• Tier 2 ask ($5K–$25K either direction, multi-program): ≤ 4 Sunny-hours; framework applied formally; board comment loop.
• Tier 3 ask (>$25K, multi-year, multi-anchor): Board vote required; framework applied formally; legal review.

The SheJumps offer is a Tier 1 ask. We are spending more than a Tier 1 budget on this analysis precisely because Sunny asked us to use it to build the framework. Future Tier 1 asks should fit in an hour.

---

§5SheJumps scored against the framework

Kill-switches triggered: None.

• No anchor-sponsor conflict.
• No anchor-activation displacement.
• No PII requirement (the scholar's PII can be handled by SheJumps; we don't need to onboard them to our systems).
• Calendar conflict is marginal at the back end; delegable.
• No multi-year lock-in.
• No tax-exempt friction.

Tie-breaker rule fires: Asymmetric Upside = 2 → terms must include at least one structural ask that fixes the asymmetry. The intro-trade in §6 is exactly that.

---

§6Recommended terms (if accepting)

If the board decides to accept, condition the acceptance on these six terms. Items 1–4 are non-negotiable; 5 and 6 are strong preferences.

Non-negotiable

1. Co-branding parity in writing

SheJumps lists "Summit Scholarship Fund (GEA Alliance)" as the funding partner of the GEA slot, with equivalent visual treatment to other named program supporters, in pre-event announcement, on the scholar's program page, in event-day signage where relevant, and in post-event social/email. One sentence in a one-page MOU.

2. Scholar selection control with safety veto

GEA Alliance nominates the scholar from our Summit Scholarship applicant pool. SheJumps retains a veto strictly for safety (skill prerequisites, glacier travel competence verified by their head guide). They do not get to substitute one of their own existing community applicants. This ensures the slot rewards our pipeline, not theirs.

3. Mutual story rights with reciprocal attribution

Both orgs may use the scholar's name, story, photo, and impact narrative (with the scholar's consent) for one year post-event. Every public asset tags both orgs.

4. Sponsor-channel introduction trade (the asymmetry fix — the real ask)

SheJumps facilitates one warm introduction to a named contact at one of: Arc'teryx, Nordica, or Ikon Pass. Warm intro = email or call setup, not just permission to drop their name. This is the single most important term. Without it, we are subsidizing their PR. With it, we get a sponsor-pipeline foothold we cannot manufacture at our size in 2026.

Strong preferences

5. Anchor-sponsor non-friction clause

Both parties agree to a 15-minute heads-up call before approaching any of LOWA, Fjällräven, Title IX, or Deuter for new (≥$10K) sponsorship. This is symmetric and costs both sides nothing if no such approach is planned.

6. No auto-renew

This is a one-year pilot. Both orgs reassess in October 2027 with a joint debrief. Either side may walk for any reason. Documenting this prevents an implicit "we always do this together" assumption from forming.

Drop-dead conditions (decline if missing)

If SheJumps will not commit to terms 1, 2, and 4 in writing — even informally over email — decline. Term 4 (the introduction trade) is the gate. Without it, the framework score effectively drops to ~16 and the asymmetric-upside floor is breached. Decline using the §4.5 script. Loop back with a counter-offer in fall 2027 for a different program.

---

§7What I'd want to know that I couldn't find

These are the open questions that, if answered differently than I'm currently assuming, could shift the recommendation:

1. Active overlap with our anchors. Is SheJumps currently in active partnership discussions with LOWA, Fjällräven, Title IX, or Deuter? If yes — particularly with Title IX or Fjällräven — the conflict score drops one band and we should renegotiate before accepting. Best way to answer: ask SheJumps directly during MOU conversation, and confirm independently with the LOWA / Fjällräven / Title IX / Deuter contacts.
2. 2027 AFS pricing and slot economics. What's the actual 2027 sticker price? Confirms the in-kind value side of the trade. Likely $3–4.5K. Not material to the decision but material to how we describe the gift publicly.
3. AFS demographics over the last 3 cohorts. Who has historically attended? If the cohort already skews high-income white women, our scholar is doing meaningful access work. If the cohort is already scholarship-heavy from BIPOC / lower-income participants, GEA's slot is more symbolic. Either is acceptable; this changes the story we tell publicly.
4. Scholar selection criteria SheJumps would impose. Do they require minimum AIARE / glacier experience? If yes, what's the screening process? GEA needs to know before we put applicants through a process that they can't complete.
5. Insurance and liability. Is the program insurance covered for participants who are GEA-nominated scholars rather than SheJumps-community? Almost certainly yes (the participant is on SheJumps' roster), but get this in writing.
6. FY25 audited financials. SheJumps ran a $173K deficit in FY25. Get the audit (or audit-equivalent) before committing to anything multi-year. Single-pilot risk is bounded.
7. The Outdoor Market Alliance / GEA relationship. OMA is a SheJumps Silver sponsor. GEA's relationship to OMA is unclear from this seat — worth checking whether anything Sunny has with OMA creates a different visibility dynamic.
8. What SheJumps explicitly wants from us. The brief framed this as them offering us a gift. But what's their ask in return? If the only ask is co-branding, the asymmetry stands. If they want our donor list, our anchor sponsor intros, or our newsletter promotion, those are real and should be priced into the terms negotiation explicitly.

---

§8New thinking — what's actually going on here

Five observations the framework alone doesn't capture but the board should hear:

8.1   The deficit changes the power dynamic

SheJumps spent down 41% of net assets in FY25 to grow. They are looking for revenue diversification and they need fundable scholar stories. A scrappy founder-led partner with a real big-mountain pipeline is more valuable to them than the framework's "asymmetric upside" score suggests. We have more negotiating leverage than the size-asymmetry implies. Use it.

8.2   The board's "fear of declining" instinct is mostly wrong

SheJumps offered ONE slot in ONE program through ONE channel. That is a transactional outreach, not a relationship investment. A polite decline does not burn a bridge. The actual relationship risk is accepting on bad terms, because that locks in an asymmetric pattern that will be hard to renegotiate next year.

8.3   The actual prize isn't this scholarship — it's the sponsor network

SheJumps' Gold tier (Arc'teryx, Nordica, Ikon, AllTrails, Smith, MCS) is exactly the brand stack GEA Alliance will need to recruit in years 2–4 of the $170K → $900K plan. We can't buy our way into those rooms at our current size. We can earn our way in via a credible partner. This offer is a wedge. Use it as one.

8.4   The "visibility asymmetry" concern is real but solvable with language discipline

"SheJumps gets more visibility than us" is not inevitable. It's inevitable if the co-branding language doesn't enforce distinct positioning. The fix is one sentence in the MOU: SheJumps = "expanding participation outdoors," GEA Alliance = "expanding access to big-mountain adventure." Different sentence, different brand promise, donor mindshare separates cleanly. We control this if we write it down.

8.5   The framework, not the answer, is what scales

Sunny was right to ask for the framework first. The decision on this single SheJumps slot affects ~$3–4K in value and one scholar. The next five partnership asks (LOWA pull-throughs, Gore-Tex, Swiss retailer, Deuter expansion, and whatever comes next) will collectively affect six figures of revenue and the trajectory of every anchor relationship. Get §4 right and the next five decisions take an hour each instead of a week. This document's most important section is §4.

---

§9Recommended next actions

1. CEO reads §1, §4, §6, §8. ~15 minutes. Decision required: accept-with-terms or decline.
2. If accept-with-terms: CEO emails Claire Smallwood (SheJumps ED) with the §6 terms in plain language. Frame the introduction trade as "what would make this most useful to both of us." Two paragraphs, no MOU draft on first send.
3. If decline: CEO uses the §4.5 script.
4. Either way: Adopt §4 as the GEA Partnership Decision Framework v1. Apply it to the next partnership ask without re-deriving.
5. Schedule a 30-minute board review of §4 at the next monthly board cadence. Once they bless it, future Tier 1 decisions don't need board input.

---

AppendixSources cited

• SheJumps 990 filings via ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer — FY2015 through FY2025.
• SheJumps Strategic Plan 2025-2028.
• SheJumps About page.
• SheJumps Alpine School page.
• SheJumps Partners page.
• SheJumps Board page.
• SheJumps Staff page.
• SheJumps Impact page.
• SheJumps 2024-2025 Annual Report announcement.
• Charity Navigator – SheJumps profile — 83% (Three-Star), 2 of 4 Beacons completed.
• 2026 SheJumps Alpine Finishing School (BC) — Eventbrite.
• FY25 SheJumps Annual Report PDF — content not retrievable via current Drive read path; metadata only. Recommend a manual board read for distributional demographic detail.