Lighthouse Emergency Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383327797
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Pontiac, MI, USA
Phone
2489206000
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Ambulance, Emergency Medical Transport Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,541,495
Expenses
$1,518,493
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURA LIGHT (PRESIDENT)
  • JACKIE BUCHANAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RICK DAVID (CEO)
  • WILMA ABNEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LISA MACHESKY (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILMA ABNEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $71,484 total reported compensation
  • LISA MACHESKY (CEO): $54,985 total reported compensation
  • RICK DAVID (CEO): $30,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Lighthouse emergency services exists to provide emergency assistance and foster self-sufficiency in partnership and collaboration with volunteers, businesses, human services agencies, faith communities, schools, and service organizations. Lighthouse emergency services accomplishes the efficient provision of quality services, programs, and education. Our services, with an emphasis on volunteerism, are provided along a continuum with lighthouse of oakland county, inc. And its subsidiaries.

What it reported doing in 2015

Other program services include senior services, and life. Les senior services serves the unmet needs of low-income seniors and disabled individuals. Life is designed to provide incentives and recognize existing family strenghts with the ultimate goal of empowering families to overcome issues that prevent them from building personal assets and reaching self-sufficiency.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 68% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 90.1%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $81.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 11th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -24% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.7% of revenue deployed · 90.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.