Rideconnect

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383804383
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Phone
7347941892
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Reported finances

Revenue
$339,725
Expenses
$314,262
Assets
$34,641
Liabilities
$8,510

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

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

Overview

Mission

Rideconnect facilitates transportation options for senior citizens, people with low income, disabilities and others within washtenaw county and adjacent counties.

What it reported doing in 2011

Coordination of transit services among existing public, private and non- profit transportation for senior citizens, low income or disabled individuals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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: 100
  • Accountability: 26
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 60

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: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 7.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.3%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 39% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $294K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $48K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2010 to 2011
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.