Douglas County Car Care Program

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461164691
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Alexandria, MN, USA
Phone
3204607911
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$686,962
Expenses
$628,214
Assets
$757,559
Liabilities
$210,864

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KRISTOFOR CHISHOLM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JAY FISKNESS (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTINE FISCHER (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • RYAN BOESEN (IM. PAST. PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KRISTOFOR CHISHOLM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $87,018 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the douglas county car care program is to provide car care to enable independence. The purpose of the douglas county car care program is to receive donated vehicles, repair them and then donate them to needy families in douglas county Minnesota to remove their transportation barriers. The program will also repair vehicles for individuals of douglas county who already own a vehicle but are not able to afford the repairs. The intent of the program is to remove the transportation barriers for people in poverty so they can get to work, care for themselves and their families.

What it reported doing in 2024

The purpose of the organization is to provide reliable affordable transportation to individuals and families that otherwise would not be served by public or private entities. As a result, these people now have reliable transportation to be gainfully employed, go to medical appointments and care for their families on their own. There were 133 vehicles donated in 2024. Of those vehicles donated in 2024 and vehicles carried forward from prior year, 43 were refurbished and given to families. 79 cars were sold to individuals or to scrap yards which provided operating capital for the organization. In addition, there were 251 car repairs for individuals. 1,577 hours of labor to repair cars and conduct classes for clients on maintenance and safety aspects of owning and operating their cars.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.1%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $56.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • 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: 8.6%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.21; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.9%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.1% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $605K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $87K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.