Clarkston Fire Service Area No 6

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770650272
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Three Forks, MT, USA
Phone
4065399922
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Safety, Disaster Preparedness & Relief N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$146,895
Expenses
$129,510
Assets
$460,666
Liabilities
$56,031

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • LISA MUELLER (TRUSTEE)
  • CLINT FIELD (TRUSTEE)
  • CHRIS RASMUSSEN (CHAIR)

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 clarkston fire service area no 6 (cfsa), as an all-hazard fire and ems organization, provides volunteer fire protection and emergency medical services to the residents of gallatin county, Montana as its primary mission.

What it reported doing in 2024

Training and continuing education -- the volunteers of cfsa complete many hours of education and training in order to be ready at any time 365 days a year to provide the best possible service in times of need. The volunteers receive regular training in the use and maintenance of new and well established fire fighting equipment, such as fire engine systems, fire-fighting equipment used in the field, and the emergency service equipment used in conjunction with ambulance services. Fitness assessments are also included in the volunteer training -- volunteers must be able to demonstrate they can physically perform the rigorous exertions they will encounter when working in hazardous field conditions with uncertain terrain. In addition, volunteers are required to regularly attend cpe courses that offer updates to employing best practices, including refresher courses in safety training, approaches to trauma mitigation, and new field developments and techniques.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.4%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 11.8%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.56; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.4% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $115K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.