Bouchercon 2014 Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
352453948
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$218,669
Expenses
$209,050
Assets
$54,350
Liabilities
$12,000

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • INGRID WILLIS (Director)
  • KAREN RINGER (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

This organization provides a platform for mystery writers to show their works and get awards toward future writings.

What it reported doing in 2014

The organization completed the planning of their event; including fostering sponsorships, creating unique programming, the development of a mobile app, and the creation of a social media campaign to promote attendance, as well as advance the reading of crime fiction. The conference was held, culminating with the anthony awards ceremony to promote the year's best crime fiction. Additional awards were given to celebrate excellence in community service. In conjunction with the long beach unified school district we organized and facilitated getting published authors into classrooms throughout the district (including catalina island) to nurture and encourage students to read and write. Additionally, we worked with the long beach public library foundation and writegirl charities to provide fundraising opportunities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.9%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 98.3%; rating input score 98
  • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.4%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 105.3% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.9% of revenue deployed · 98.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $200K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.