Caring for Bethlehem Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822473303
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Bethlehem, CT, USA
Phone
8606313169
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$484,509
Expenses
$454,994
Assets
$294,094
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Vera Rosa (President)
  • Marjorie Theresa O'Neill (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Vera Rosa (President)
  • Marjorie Theresa O'Neill (Vice President)
  • Mary Ann Fontaine (Secretary, Scholarship Chair)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The spirit of Caring for Bethlehem comes from a long history of people giving time and resources selflessly to build the community of Bethlehem, CT as we know it today. Recognizing that local response to local needs makes sense, and recognizing the constraints of time in today's world and the desires of people to make a difference locally, Caring for Bethlehem builds community, develops programs to meet local needs, and makes it possible for volunteers to match their talents with opportunities to serve. Bethlehem Food Bank, Bethlehem Fuel Bank, Bethlehem Assistance Fund, and other programs of Caring for Bethlehem make it possible for financially insecure individuals and families to live productive lives in Bethlehem, CT. Caring for Bethlehem is an all-volunteer organization serving our neighbors with kindness and respect.

What it reported doing in 2025

Bethlehem Food Bank: A selection of healthy foods including non-persishable food, fresh produce, dairy products, meat products, and personal care items is provided for those in need in the Bethlehem Community. Over 300 people from more than 100 financially insecure households were served throughout the year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.2%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 97.1%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 4.5%; rating input score 5; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.1%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.2% of revenue deployed · 97.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $442K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.