Fighter Country Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205633760
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Goodyear, AZ, USA
Phone
6238822191
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,520,265
Expenses
$1,934,418
Assets
$3,072,576
Liabilities
$881,165

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ron Sites (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ron Sites (President): $201,999 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 Fighter Country Foundation, Inc. is to honor, serve, and support the men and women of Luke Air Force Base (LAFB) with programs designed to aid, educate, and integrate them for the duration of their stay in our community. Our vision is as follows:1. To develop and focus community support for a meaningful foundation and response to LAFB's short and long-term operational considerations.2. To inform the public and support the important mission that LAFB has in its defense of our nation's security.3. To promote the further development and enhancement of the relationship between LSFB, its personnel, and the citizens of the metropolitan Phoenix area, as well as all communities therein.A. Advancing civic education - involving area youth (individuals, schools, and youth clubs) and LAFB through programs of information and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Sustainability - Fighter Country Foundation educates the surrounding communities on the mission of Luke Air Force Base, and actively advocates at the local, state, and national level to promote the base's interests, preservation, and sustainability.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.8%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87%; rating input score 87; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.2%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.59; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.8% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 23 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $202K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.