Archdale-Trinity Chamber Of Commerc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581554229
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Archdale, NC, USA
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$112,957
Expenses
$154,660
Assets
$16,549
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lisa Hayworth (President)

People named in this filing

  • Amber Scarlet (Chair Special Events)
  • Darrell Frye (Triad Liason)
  • Lewis Dorsett (Chair Economic Development)

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 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We are a membership organization. We are the voice of businesses that enhance economic opportunities, and fosters a sustainable community.

What it reported doing in 2023

Annual and on-going events include: Attune, Business After Hours, Chamber Champs, Coffee & Conversation, Chamber Golf Tournament, Lunch with Lawmakers, Junior Golf Tournament, Spring Gala, The chamber provided numerous, monthly, annual gatherings that encouraged networking and socializing between local business owners, citizens and government officals, and educating to boot! We provide an opportunity duruing election season for local people tomeet and question government office candidates.Information transmission is enhanced with weekly newsletters afvertising happenings in the area.All was accomplished greatly through the events and other publications provided throughout each year.

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

MIXED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.7%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 29%; rating input score 29
  • Fundraising efficiency: $68.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -36.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.7% of revenue deployed · 29% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $45K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2020 to 2023
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.