Nursing 2000

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351762201
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3175741325
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Nursing Services (General)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$351,183
Expenses
$299,982
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote and support registered nursing careers in central Indiana and positively impact clinical and academic nursing workforce resources by utilizing contemporary strategies to reach diverse populations.

What it reported doing in 2010

As of july 1, 2011 the organization has terminated and merged with Indiana center for nursing f/k/a Indiana nursing workforce development coalition.educational organization that promoted registered nursing careers through public educations, career counseling, and scholarships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 4th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 14.6%; rating input score 76; 76th 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: 33.5%; rating input score 9; 9th 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: 11 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $149K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $95K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.