Committee of One Hundred Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
726029096
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Shreveport, LA, USA
Phone
3185623169
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$202,711
Expenses
$127,117
Assets
$377,576
Liabilities
$7,222

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ADAM SISTRUNK (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID DETHLOFF (VICE PRESIDENT 1)
  • CURTIS JOSEPH (VICE PRESIDENT 2)
  • ERIC BARKLEY (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN SHARP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN SHARP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $30,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

It is the mission of the committee of one hundred to mobilize the regional business community for the betterment of northwest Louisiana through the assertion of leadership and influence as we study, confer and act upon any civic or economic matter affecting the area; support educational or civic enterprises promoting welfare of governmental bodies with absolutely non-political activities; keep membership informed about major facets of economic, governmental, civic, and cultural activities; monitor activities of existing organizations and agencies, lending needed leadership; seek out community needs not receiving attention and provide support to form appropriate organizations or agencies; promote and improve diversity sensitivity and race relations; use unique civic, educational and charitable activities to remove barriers of whatever nature and make a significant difference in meeting needs affecting welfare of the area.

What it reported doing in 2024

The committee of 100 makes community contributions each year to various education and civic organizations in the shreveport-bossier community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.5%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 59.2%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.9%; rating input score 87; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 37.3%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.97; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.5% of revenue deployed · 59.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $75K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $30K · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.