Volunteer Foundation of Douglas County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943119916
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Roseburg, OR, USA
Phone
5417845352
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,371
Expenses
$17,209
Assets
$11,811

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SEAN NEGHERBON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SEAN NEGHERBON (PRESIDENT)
  • DIANNA DENTON (VICE PRESIDE)
  • LINDA SHERIDAN (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The volunteer foundation of douglas county was established in 1989 through a generous endowment from a community member. Members of the board of directors are community volunteers. The foundation's goals and objectives are: to raise diversified funds for the foster granparent program, rsvp, and the senior companion program. Increase community awareness about the value of civic engagement recognize and support volunteers guide and support staff of non profit organizations through volunteer management training

What it reported doing in 2017

To acquire, manage and disburse assets solely for the benefit of the rsvp (retired and senior volunteer program), the senior companion program and other volunteer programs in douglas county that may, from time to time, be developed and approved by the board of directors. Raised funds for senior volunteer programs. Hosted a recongnition luncheon for 360 volunteers representing 75,709 hours at 19 volunteer sites helping serve 100 frail seniors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -65.9%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.1% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.4% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.8% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $16K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.