Summerfield Volunteer Fire Dept

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
631058729
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Selma, AL, USA
Phone
3348725525
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fire Prevention

Reported finances

Revenue
$79,708
Expenses
$77,745
Assets
$96,113
Liabilities
$132,120

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WAYNE TILLEY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • WAYNE TILLEY (PRESIDENT)
  • JOSEPH HOBSON (VICE PRESIDE)
  • KEVIN BOX (TREASURER)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Volunteer fire department

What it reported doing in 2017

To provide fire department services for residents of summerfield area in dallas county

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.8%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 96.1%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: 2.5%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.37; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.5% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.4% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.8% of revenue deployed · 96.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $75K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • 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.

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: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.