The Bucoda Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030567734
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2013
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Bucoda, WA, USA
Phone
3603525240
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,277
Expenses
$5,281
Assets
$13,086
Liabilities
$11

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Sutley (Vice President)
  • Robert Rose (President)

People named in this filing

  • John Sutley (Vice President)
  • Dana Maher (Treasurer)
  • Lou Ann Hoffman (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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Make capital Improvements to City owned building.

What it reported doing in 2013

The Bucoda Community Foundation engaged the services of an architect to draw up plans for the restoration of a city owned historical building. After receiving the plans, the Bucoda Community Foundation entered into a contract with a construction contractor to begin restoring this city owned building. The Bucoda Community Foundation was successful in completing phase one of this restoration project in 2010.In 2011 we funded phase one of the fire suppression system; installed to protect the city owned building.In 2012 we were awarded a grant from the State of Washington to renovate the interior portion of the building. Renovations included construction of a wheelchair accessible entrance and installation of a chairlift, retrofit of a stairwell and windows, installation of heat pumps, a gas furnace, and hot water heater, ceiling insulation, and renovations to the electrical system, fixtures, restrooms, and wood floors. We also installed an automatic fire sprinkler system in the building.In 2013 we continued work on the renovation of the interior portion of the building.

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
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 77.8%; rating input score 78

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -313.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.48; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 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.

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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.