East Ridge Revitalization Program Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
621622270
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-N 2008
Location
East Ridge, TN, USA
Phone
4238022948
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,099
Expenses
$24,079
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DONNA REED (President)
  • CURTIS BAKER (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • BONNIE FUGATT (Director)
  • JO ANN LAWRENCE (Director)
  • DONNA REED (President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide assistance, where possible, to the community.

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 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: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -239.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 7 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $20K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.