Henderson County Rescue Squad

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581548461
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2009
Forms available
Form 990 2009
Location
Lexington, TN, USA
Phone
7319671565
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Ambulance, Emergency Medical Transport Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$108,722
Expenses
$112,251
Assets
$359,489
Liabilities
$82,569

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2009. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2009. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide life saving and rescue services

What it reported doing in 2009

To promote a better understanding between life-saving units

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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.2%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.2; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 28 of 28 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $75K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 33 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.