Greater Cincinnati Intergroup Council of Aa

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311010589
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5133510422
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$118,647
Expenses
$127,836
Assets
$138,615
Liabilities
$2,698

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • SPENCER GARON (OFFICER MANA)
  • PAT BAAS (DIRECTOR)
  • MARK JUST (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The greater cincinnati intergroup council of aa is an alcoholics anonymous (aa) service arm that involves aa partnership among groups in the greater cincinnati area. It is established to carry out certain functions common to all groups functions.

What it reported doing in 2024

The greater cincinnati intergroup council of aa is an alcoholics anonymous (aa) service arm that involved aa partnership among groups in the greater cincinnati area. It is established to carry out certain functions common to all group functions which are best handled by a central office and supported by these groups in the general interest. It exists to aid all groups in the greater cincinnati area in their common purpose of carrying the aa message to the alcoholic who still suffers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 33.7%; rating input score 34

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.08; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38% of revenue deployed · 33.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $43K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.