Cleveland Commission for Wells Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
993074757
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Bridgeport, NY, USA
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$98,530
Expenses
$55,587
Assets
$11,300

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Caolan Macmahon (Co-Chair)
  • Sara French (Co-Chair)
  • Sabrina Lombardo Young (Historian)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Cleveland Commission for Wells CCFW has been organized for the following reasons and purposes: Raising funds to prevent the permanent closure of Wells College and the loss of her legacy In the event that the reopening of the college does not happen CCFW will then direct our focus to the following: Raising funds for the preservation safekeeping sorting cataloging etc. of items associated with the College and the Village of Aurora to be held in museums libraries archives and other institutions Establishing scholarships for 2024-2025 sophomores juniors and seniors as they transfer to new colleges Establishing scholarships for the children of Wells graduates who planned to attend as Legacy Students Establishing scholarships and grants for graduates and faculty for academic and scholarly purposes including application fees conference registrations research and publications and other activities

What it reported doing in 2024

Establishment of Organization; outreach to community; legal intervention

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 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 filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.3%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 99.8%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 43.6%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.3% of revenue deployed · 99.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $55K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.