Coming Together Stark County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341972496
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2020
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Canton, OH, USA
Phone
3304545880
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,944
Expenses
$9,066
Assets
$10,893
Liabilities
$2,605

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Constance Rubin (President)
  • Jenna Bucklew (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Constance Rubin (President)
  • Jenna Bucklew (Vice President)
  • Anne Richards (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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To serve as a catalyst and agent to promote inclusion and open opportunity for the diverse population of Stark County.

What it reported doing in 2020

To serve as an agent for change through a county wide effort to promote racial, ethical, and cultural harmony in the community, to promote equality for all, to educate the community on how to benefit from diversity, to bring people together to foster awareness and appreciation of diversity and to strive toward making Stark County the best place to live, work, and raise a family.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% 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. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.3%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 61.8%; rating input score 62

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -33% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -24.2% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.3% of revenue deployed · 61.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2016 to 2020
  • 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.

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 43/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.