Enfield Farmers Mutual Insurance Co

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
370632567
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010
Location
Enfield, IL, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Mutual Insurance Company & Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$547,666
Expenses
$575,190
Assets
$366,052
Liabilities
$227,279

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The company is classified as a farm mutual insurance company by the Illinois department of professional regulation - division of insurance the company is a small mutual writing fire and wind coverages in the surrounding counties

What it reported doing in 2010

The company is a farm mutual insurance company that provides fire and wind coverage in the surrounding counties that they are authorized to write in by the Illinois department of professional regulation

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 14
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.62; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $575K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $27K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.