Vermont Funeral Directors & Embalmers Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030298001
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Woodstock, VT, USA
Phone
8024571224
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$118,293
Expenses
$102,502
Assets
$525,182
Liabilities
$3,286

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Chris Palermo (President)
  • Adam Goss (Vice President)
  • Gregory Camp (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Gregory Camp (Executive Director): $36,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Educational Forum for Funeral Directors

What it reported doing in 2019

Provided members with industry knowledge through publications, continuing education and other meetings/conventions held throughout the year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, 1% for grants, and 19% for member benefits.

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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 95.3%; rating input score 95
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 13.3%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.12; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.6% of revenue deployed · 95.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $98K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $36K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2017 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.