Hose Hook & Ladder Company No 1

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611555974
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Kittanning, PA, USA
Phone
7245431650
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fire Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$43,774
Expenses
$45,575
Assets
$337,471
Liabilities
$20,376

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GERALD SHUSTER (PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICK SHUSTER (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • GERALD SHUSTER (PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICK SHUSTER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • EARL M KLINE (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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The objective of this fire department is to prevent and extinguish fires in the kittanning, pa and surrounding areas.

What it reported doing in 2016

Hose, hook and ladder's primary objective is to protect the lives and property of kittanning borough residents and its visitors as well as the neighboring communities. We fill the role of trained and properly equipped first responders to fire, public safety, and assist with medical emergencies, disasters, and acts of terrorism.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 64% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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: 82
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 20

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; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.1%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.4; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -41.8% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -15.2% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd 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 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.