Center for Rural Family Development Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300231113
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Eutaw, AL, USA
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$43,891
Expenses
$31,996
Assets
$121,607
Liabilities
$7,185

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • NAOMI GOODSON CYRUS (SECRETARY)
  • MONICA PARKER (MEMBER)
  • LORENZ FRENCH (MEMBER)

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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Serves as a family life and resource program for youth and adults focusing on enhancing spiritual and moral values, educational achievements, life skills, and career awareness.

What it reported doing in 2019

Conducted a summer youth program (75 children) and after school tutorial program (60 students). Program serves hard-to-serve adult and at risk youth with an emphasis on providing training and support services and barrier removal activities. It includes transportation and lunch/ snacks. Activities included summer feeder program, african american museium for national history, marcus campbell basketball camp, ten (10)students in gardening program, cash for college Alabama, hand up scholarship essay contest, backpack rally, and sixteen hundred dollars for the raymond austin scholarship awards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 97% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.2%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.1%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.8; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.2% of revenue deployed · 77.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $25K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2012 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.