Phoenix Recycling and Shredding

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200210662
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Belleville, IL, USA
Phone
6182774100
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Recycling Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$102,964
Expenses
$95,756
Assets
$27,934
Liabilities
$99,507

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide work opportunities and job training for individuals with special needs and to conduct any and all actions related thereto.

What it reported doing in 2011

For recycling and to provide jobs for people with developmental disabilities

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 69% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 100
  • Accountability: 27
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th 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: 11.1%; rating input score 11; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 3.56; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.3%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -17.3% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -41.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 1 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $90K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $147K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2010 to 2011
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

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: Independent voting board scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.