Beaverfork Fire Department Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710563691
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Conway, AR, USA
Phone
5013294200
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Support N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$949,894
Expenses
$912,802
Assets
$4,383,685
Liabilities
$2,853,265

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS CAMPOLO (PRESIDENT/WATER SUPPLY CHAIRMAN)
  • CONNIE TRENT (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CHRIS CAMPOLO (PRESIDENT/WATER SUPPLY CHAIRMAN)
  • CONNIE TRENT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JULIE WOODWARD (SECRETARY/TREASURER)

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

Beaverfork volunteer fire department, inc. (the department) is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to associate its members together for their mutual benefit for purposes of fire protection and by constructing, maintaining, and operating a water system. These purposes are carried out by the fire protection division and the water supply division, respectively. Members consist of residents of northeastern faulkner county, Arkansas. The department is supported primarily through service revenue, donor contributions, and other membership fees.

What it reported doing in 2014

The purpose of the corporation is to construct, maintain & operate a private system for the supplying of water to its members and to engage in any activity related thereto

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 90% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.2%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.9%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.8; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $913K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 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.

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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.