Fivco Service Agency Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311143820
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Ashland, KY, USA
Phone
6069291366
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,056
Expenses
$236,354
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BARBARA COPLEY (EXECUTIVE DI): $49,227 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The agency's activities include establishing and operating senior citizen centers, the providing of meals and other social and health related services to older residents of a five county area of eastern Kentucky.

What it reported doing in 2014

Homecare- social services block grant nutritional programs and state funded health and aging programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 3
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 55.9%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3,249.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -103% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -29.8% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -26.2% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 55.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $132K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $49K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.