Friends of the Eastham Council on Aging Inc The
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 042706068
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- North Eastham, MA, USA
- Phone
- 5082370527
- Rating
- 40
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Senior Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $140,401
- Expenses
- $88,996
- Assets
- $389,355
- Liabilities
- $374
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Karen Harmon (President)
- Terry Hendrix (Vice President/Asst. Treasurer)
People named in this filing
- Karen Harmon (President)
- Terry Hendrix (Vice President/Asst. Treasurer)
- Mary Jane Kearns (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Organization is dedicated to supporting the Eastham Council on Aging, whose duties are to: 1. Identify the total needs of the community's elderly population. 2. Educate the community and enlist support and participation of all citizens concerning these needs. 3. Design, promote or implement services to fill these needs or coordinate any present existing services in the community. 4. promote and support any other programs which are designed to assist elderly programs in the community.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 82
- Sustainability: 78
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 36.6%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.37; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.