Happy Camp Library Association INC

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943297015
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Happy Camp, CA, USA
Phone
6614286844
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$43,470
Expenses
$44,470
Assets
$46,155
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Emily Allen (President)
  • Lisa Bousfield (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Emily Allen (President)
  • Lisa Bousfield (Vice President)
  • Casey Chambers (Secretary/Librarian)

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

Overview

Mission

Operation, maintenance and purchase of materials for local public library in Happy Camp, California.

What it reported doing in 2025

Replace torn and loose carpeting which was a serious tripping hazard. Replace linoleum which was cracked and worn. Replace bookshelves that have been repaired many times. Falling shelves full of books was a hazard to clients. The lighting which was very old and inadequate for reading has been upgraded. The electrical wiring is also old and has been replaced to handle existing loads.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 99
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.7%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.4%; rating input score 97

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.3%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.04; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.7% of revenue deployed · 97.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $43K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.