Forest Park Country Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042140605
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Adams, MA, USA
Rating
31
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$499,092
Expenses
$461,171
Assets
$187,707
Liabilities
$10,399

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jason Sniezek (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Jonathan Butler (Chairman)
  • Jason Sniezek (Vice President)
  • Robert Murray (Director)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The main program for Forest Park Country Club was the golf course.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 81
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

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: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th 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; 8th 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: 7.6%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 30.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 14 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.