Love Inc of South Lincoln County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
852104856
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Libby, MT, USA
Phone
4063342016
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$92,875
Expenses
$88,540
Assets
$53,895
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ERIC MYERS (CHAIR)
  • SHERRY HINGLEY (VICE-CHAIR)
  • ANDREW OLSEN (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Organize and coordinate churches in south lincoln county to respond to individual, family, and project needs in the name of christ, incarnate son of god savior, and lord. Fashion a cooperative relationship betweeen area agencies and churches, generate untapped church resources to meet community needs, develop a clearinghouse to screen needs, use community resources, and, as it matures, other initiatives necessary to meet needs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Auto gap ministry is operated by volunteers who help love inc participants in the following: 1) monthly oil changes & safety inspections. Requirements include: legal registration, driver's license and insurance card as well as an oil filter. 2) free automobile inspections by a mechanic. 3) small automobile repairs. The participant pays for the parts and volunteers to do the work.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.1%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 50.8%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.7%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 21; 21st 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 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -31.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.1% of revenue deployed · 50.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $45K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.