Breen Community Building

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841170868
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Hesperus, CO, USA
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,472
Expenses
$6,330
Assets
$256,234

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN MILTON (President)
  • FRANK SMITH (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • JOHN MILTON (President)
  • FRANK SMITH (Vice President)
  • MAE MORLEY (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To hold title for the real and personal property formally held by breen grange #318. To maintain and make the building available for social, civil, educational, recrealtional, religious, and health needs and interest of the local community.

What it reported doing in 2025

The breen community building assocaition was organized to hold title for the real and personal property formally held by breen grange #318. The building is used for social, civil, educational, recrealtional, religious, and health needs and interest of the local community. Roughly there are about 5,000 residents of the communtiy that benefit from and use of the building.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.7%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 63.8%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 40.48; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 6 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.