Crescent Hill Community Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
310903849
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Phone
5028957975
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Neighborhood, Block Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,455
Expenses
$5,563
Assets
$48,008
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIN KLARER (ACTING PRESIDENT, AT LARGE MEMBER)

People named in this filing

  • ALISON BROTZGE-ELDER (DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE)
  • BARB BOWER (AT LARGE MEMBER)
  • CATHY ANDERSON (AT LARGE MEMBER)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the crescent hill community council (chcc) is to serve as an advocate for maintaining crescent hill's quality of life by improving the civic, recreational, cultural and educational life of the crescent hill neighborhood, and by strengthening community pride and involvement through objective planning, preservation, and enhancement of its historic character and natural beauty.

What it reported doing in 2025

Committees execute various special programs and events: block party, spirit of crescent hill award, history preservation, holiday party, easter parade, dessert with the mayor, welcome, membership, beautification, derby party

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 72.8%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.63; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $43K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.