Patterson Cypress Sawmill Museum Festival Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
721173538
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Patterson, LA, USA
Phone
9853976824
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Museum, Museum Activities

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,605
Expenses
$4,044
Assets
$120,199

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEVE BIERHORST (President)
  • JEFF LAGRANGE (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • STEVE BIERHORST (President)
  • JEFF LAGRANGE (Vice President)
  • CHARLES CAMPBELL (Secretary)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide financial support for the Louisiana state museum, patterson, la housing the official state aviation and cypress sawmill industry museum

What it reported doing in 2015

Sponsored programs promoted by the la state museum to foster awareness about the cypress logging industry and its role in la history and culture. Funded scholarship awares to festival queens as a reward for their efforts going throughout the state and promoting the cypress sawmill festival. Made monetary donations to the la state museum to assist in the development and promotion of the la state museum facility in patterson, la

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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.

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: 3
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 3.8%; rating input score 4
  • Program expense ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 2

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -152%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 29.72; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -37.9% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 3.8% of revenue deployed · 1.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $61 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 4/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.