Tri-county Firesafe Working Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475387650
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Helena, MT, USA
Phone
4064592542
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fire Prevention

Reported finances

Revenue
$311,429
Expenses
$287,216
Assets
$123,988
Liabilities
$41,624

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LOIS OLSEN (PRESIDENT AND INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ED SHINDOLL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRAD LANGSATHER (VICE PRESIDENT II)

People named in this filing

  • LOIS OLSEN (PRESIDENT AND INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ED SHINDOLL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JANET KENNEDY-YAGER (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To preserve and enhance the area's natural & manmade resources through a collaborative effort by mobilizing both public and private sectors to make homes, businesses, properties, neighborhoods, communities and the landscape more fire safe.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tri-county firesafe working group's (tcfswg) mission is to engage property owners on how to co-exist with and survive wildfire. Our programs and activities are designed to help property owners reduce their fire risks and to live more safely in a wildfire environment. These programs include outreach & education, private property wildfire risk assessments, and risk reduction activities targeting hazardous fuels removal and defensible space improvements on private lands and structures that are at risk to the impacts of wildfire. The organization consists of a broad spectrum of stakeholders including federal and state land managers and wildfire officials, county, and city government as well as private citizens and contractors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 91% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 63% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.8% of revenue deployed · 89.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $258K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.