Bennett County Senior Citizens Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460321673
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Martin, SD, USA
Phone
6056856642
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Congregate Meals

Reported finances

Revenue
$464,439
Expenses
$479,201
Assets
$139,001
Liabilities
$26,704

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAVERN CEPLECHA (PRESIDENT)
  • LORRAINE BUCKLES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • AMI ALLEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMI ALLEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $34,250 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission statement is to provide nutritious meals and safe transportation to senior citizens so that each can remain living independently at home.

What it reported doing in 2015

Title iii b, transporation services for the elderly-two of the sites provide transportation for seniors. During this fiscal year approximately 5 different people received 1041 units of service. A unit of service is defined as each time a rider gets off the bus. One person may accrue several units of service during one trip. For example, a rider who get off at the senior center, post office, grocery store, doctor's office and home would have 5 units of service. The majority of our units of service are for seniors getting off for the noon meal at the congregate dining site. Riders are encouraged to contribute for their ride, but no one is refused service if they cannot contribute. One site has a mini-van that provides trips out of town. These trips are usually to doctor appointments. The longest trip is 125 -150 miles and the closest is 50 miles. Most seniors that use the mini-van also make other stops once they get to their doctor appointment. Stops at wal-mart, shopping malls, etc. Are common as there is very limited shopping in the small towns we serve and virtually no stores in which to purchase items like clothing, house hold items (like blankets, rugs) etc.seniors feel strongly about supporting the local businesses in the town where they live, but really appreciate the opportunity to shop for things not available to them otherwise.all of these services help senior citizens remain living in their homes with independence and dignity. The ability to contribute what each can afford allows seniors with very little money to access services that otherwise might not be available to them.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 62% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

SUPPORTED - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.4%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 76%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -3.2%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.4% of revenue deployed · 76% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $364K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $34K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.