Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232786151
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Crum Lynne, PA, USA
Phone
4844027530
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$326,407
Expenses
$70,197
Assets
$409,764
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

People named in this filing

  • HARRY CRAWFORD (DIRECTOR)
  • WILLIAM JONES (DIRECTOR)
  • MARGARET BROWN (DIRECTOR)

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

Chester residents concerned for quality living (crcql) is a community led non-profit group that organizes and educates on issues of clean air, community health and environmental justice in chester city, pa and the neighboring region.

What it reported doing in 2024

Chester residents concerned for quality living (crcql) is a community led non-profit group that organizes and educates on issues of clean air, community health and environmental justice in chester city, pa and the neighboring region. Crcql organizes educational programs and hold regular community meetings, workshops, trainings, and canvassing campaigns to help raise awareness and educate residents about the environmental health risks they are facing and what they can do to make a positive difference for the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 15%; rating input score 15
  • Program expense ratio: 69.7%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3,262.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 78.5%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.84; rating input score 82; 82nd 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 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 59.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 91% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 15% of revenue deployed · 69.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $49K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 15/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.