Saylor Creek Rangeland Fire Protection Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461555057
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Gooding, ID, USA
Phone
2089349079
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fire Prevention

Reported finances

Revenue
$70,686
Expenses
$29,311
Assets
$45,847
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MIKE FAULKNER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • STACEE PARKE (TREASURER)
  • MIKE FAULKNER (PRESIDENT)
  • DARCY HELMICK (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Rangeland fire protection associations (rfpas) empower local landowners to protect their own property and their neighbors where fire protection services are limited or not available. By responding quickly, fires on the range can be kept small. Rfpas can also respond to fires nearby that would otherwise take time for other firefighting agencies to reach. Rangeland fire protection associations operate under the concept of neighbors helping neighbors with support, including start-up funding, training, and refurbished equipment provided through idl, blm, and other partners including the office of species conservation and us fish and wildlife service. Membership in these associations is voluntary and largely made up of local farmers, ranchers and community members. While rfpas are not taxing rural fire districts, they empower these local landowners to safely respond and protect their own property and their neighbors where fire protection services are limited or not available. Rfpas are also

What it reported doing in 2025

Coordination with government fire protection agencies to assist in wildfire suppression on public and private land

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.5%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 58.5%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.56; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 77 of 77 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.