Cities Strong Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
922890829
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
8014194349
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$564,727
Expenses
$384,383
Assets
$273,246
Liabilities
$21,000

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT SORENSEN (PRESIDENT, CEO)
  • TED HILL (VICE-PRESIDENT, TREASURER, CFO)
  • KENT BOWMAN (VICE-PRESIDENT, COO (AS OF 2.29.24))
  • MARK DURHAM (VICE-PRESIDENT, CMO)

People named in this filing

  • DANIEL ENGLAND (BOARD CHAIRMAN)
  • SCOTT SORENSEN (PRESIDENT, CEO)
  • PAUL WERNER (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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's mission is to (i) contribute to or engage in projects promoting community improvement, health and civic engagement in cities, towns, and communities located in the state of Utah, (ii) implement and provide life-skills, training and educational opportunities to residents of neighborhoods and communities in the state of Utah, (iii) participate with, carry out and support the "my hometown" initiative in the state of Utah, (iv) support communities, local Utah governments and those organizations with service initiatives consistent with the foregoing, and (v) engage inother charitable community-based projects in the state of Utah.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community improvement program this program primarily supports the myhometown (mht) initiative in 13 neighborhoods along Utah's wasatch front. Cities strong foundation (csf) contributed to west valley city to purchase equipment to support days of service activities in west valley city, assisted in repairing a fire damaged residence in the rose park neighborhood, provided 100 sewing machines and 100 keyboards to mht for use in mht's community resource centers, and supported the development of mht technology to manage volunteers and participants in various mht projects and programs. During 2024, mht participated in 671 neighborhood revitalization projects through 19,035 volunteers, who provided 201,733 service hours.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.6%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $47.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.4%; rating input score 97; 45th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 31.9%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 185.3% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 132.3% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 116.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.6% of revenue deployed · 81.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $314K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.