Mountrail County Council on Aging

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450382091
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2012
Location
New Town, ND, USA
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$320,017
Expenses
$233,495
Assets
$134,649
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NITA KOK (PRESIDENT)
  • ROGER EVANS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROGER EVANS (VICE PRESIDENT): $60 total reported compensation
  • NITA KOK (PRESIDENT): $40 total reported compensation
  • KAREN ONSTAD (SECRETARY): $20 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Social welfare of county senior citizens

What it reported doing in 2016

Funding local senior citizen clubs of mountrail county. There are four senior clubs in mountrail county providing social, educational and recreational services to seniors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Member-benefit provider. The nonprofit used 87% of its reported program spending for member benefits.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 53
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.6%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 99.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 75%; rating input score 75; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.1%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 30.9% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.6% of revenue deployed · 99.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 16 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $232K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.