Cca Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264544384
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Captiva, FL, USA
Phone
2394722001
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,104,473
Expenses
$612,966
Assets
$1,141,432
Liabilities
$974

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAM ROSEN (V PRESIDENT)
  • MIKE BENNETT (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • PAT BORIS (SECRETARY)
  • LISA RIORDAN (DIRECTOR)
  • PAM ROSEN (V PRESIDENT)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide funding support for the captiva civic association and other community wide organizations which provide educational and public benefit programs on and around captiva island.

What it reported doing in 2024

The cca foundation provides financial support to the cca in order to fulfill its mission and provide improvements of a civic nature to residents and visitors of captiva, Florida. The cca foundation also awards scholarships for continuing education to support local residents or employees and/or their children. However, no scholarship was awarded in 2023. In a typical year, the captiva civic association and cca foundation annual program accomplishments include educational programs, public services, community informational presentations and forums, community-building activities, and wellness initiatives. Some examples are historical presentations, environmental and eco-science talks, community meetings concerning important local issues, workshops on medicare, memory impairment, and crime prevention, as well as special interest classes such as food and wine pairing, art exhibitions, and other arts performances. We also provide a venue for social gathering for community-building. In addition, we provide administrative office space for the captiva island historical society, the facility space for the captiva memorial library, and a residence for a lee county deputy sheriff and family.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.3%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 99.3%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: $381.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 47th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 44.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.86; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.3% of revenue deployed · 99.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $608K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.