Christmas in April - Calcasieu Area Inc an Affiliate of Rebuilding Together Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
721323334
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2010, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Lake Charles, LA, USA
Phone
3374911237
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Home Improvement and Repairs

Reported finances

Revenue
$155,335
Expenses
$130,789
Assets
$60,713
Liabilities
$407

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MEL JACKSON (Vice President)
  • CHARLENE BENNETT (President)

People named in this filing

  • SUSAN MESTAYER (Executive Direc)
  • MEL JACKSON (Vice President)
  • BETTY ROSS (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Christmas in april-calcasieu area, inc. Is an organization that, in partnership with the community, refurbishes homes for the elderly, low income and disabled homeowners so that they may continue to live in safety, warmth and independence.

What it reported doing in 2013

During the fiscal year ended may 31, 2013, the organization renovated, refurbished, and rebuilt floors and roofs and updated wiring and plumbing in numerous houses owned by low income, edgerly, disabled and/or families with children.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 41.6%; rating input score 42

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.8%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -21.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.7% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35% of revenue deployed · 41.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $54K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2011 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
  • 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 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.