The Fund for Community Progress

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
050399609
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Warwick, RI, USA
Phone
4019417100
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$279,226
Expenses
$283,369
Assets
$192,081
Liabilities
$28,387

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SALLY TURNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SALLY TURNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $73,381 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The fund for community progress' mission is to build a better community by raising funds for nonprofit grassroots agencies committed to a vision of social change necessary to guarantee fairness and opportunity for all rhode islanders.the fund for community progress envisions a just and equitable society. We believe that a healthy community respects human rights, celebrates diversity, promotes citizen participation and achieves justice for all in every sphere whether economic, social, cultural or political.

What it reported doing in 2014

The fund for community progress provides advocacy, education and fund-raising activities to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of its 25 member organizations. The majority of funds raised for these grassroots, nonprofit organizations is primarily through workplace giving. Unlike government and other private charitable organizations that provide grants for direct program operations the money that the fund raises is used by members where it is needed most. This has included a myriad of needs ranging from everyday basic necessities to program improvements.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.5%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 71.5%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.5%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.9%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.5% of revenue deployed · 71.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 32 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $203K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $73K · 31 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.