Burlingame Fire District #6

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
481210098
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Burlingame, KS, USA
Phone
7856542407
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fire Prevention

Reported finances

Revenue
$197,553
Expenses
$240,317
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID THOMPSON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LARRY SMART (TREASURER): $1,200 total reported compensation
  • DAVID THOMPSON (PRESIDENT): $650 total reported compensation
  • RON CARLSON (SECRETARY): $600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Fire department

What it reported doing in 2018

The district serves 110 sq miles for fire and medical services to the surrounding community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -21.6%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -57.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $240K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2014 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.