West Catasauqua Fire Co 1

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231209810
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Whitehall, PA, USA
Phone
6102641141
Rating
29
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fire Prevention

Reported finances

Revenue
$279,318
Expenses
$286,874
Assets
$222,471
Liabilities
$145,039

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HARRISON BRUDER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • HARRISON BRUDER (PRESIDENT): $600 total reported compensation
  • BARBARA DEDOCS (TREASURER): $600 total reported compensation
  • BRENDA BRUDER (SECRETARY): $600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide facilities for volunteer fire company. Social organization providing food, drink and amusement for the members.

What it reported doing in 2015

Social organization providing food, drink and amusemtn for the members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 5
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.7%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $600 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 12 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2012 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 8 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.