Glen Valley Cemetery Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
041369866
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Barre, MA, USA
Phone
9783552188
Rating
33
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$38,683
Expenses
$34,797
Assets
$497,915
Liabilities
$2,513

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEITH PARKER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL CILLEY (TREASURER): $2,849 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To operate and maintain a cemetery.

What it reported doing in 2024

The association properly cares for the cemetery grounds and provides burial lots at a reasonable cost.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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. 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: 16
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 0

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: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.31; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 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.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.