Florida's Heartland Redi Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
593213603
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Okeechobee, FL, USA
Phone
8636976325
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$151,198
Expenses
$24,478
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • TERRY BURROUGHS (CHAIRMAN)
  • GREG HARRIS (VICE CHAIRMA)
  • ROBBIE CHARTIER (SECRETARY/TR)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The corporation is incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation under Florida statutes, chapter 617, and shall be operated as a not-for- profit corporation in a manner which is consistent with the requirements of Florida statutes, chapter 617 and section 501(c)(6).

What it reported doing in 2015

Usf polytechnic project - enhance regional partnerships to support economic development by assisting in the creation and support of regional plans for business expansion and retention, education, housing and transportation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 83.8%; rating input score 99; 99th 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 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.