Brunswick Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341676608
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Brunswick, OH, USA
Phone
3307307185
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Reported finances

Revenue
$41,684
Expenses
$36,818
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CINDI WHITE (PRESIDENT)
  • LESLIE ROBINSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JAN MARSH (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CINDI WHITE (PRESIDENT)
  • LYNN KOCH (SECRETARY)
  • STEPHEN HANUDEL (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The bef has been created to assist sutdents and staff of the brunswick city school district in their pursuit of excellance. The foundation provides additional fundding for curricular and extra-curricular activities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Part vi sec b -tax return is available to directors for approval prior to filing part vi sec b - directors are required to file a conflict-of-interest statement and abstain from voting when conflict exists part vi sec b - there are no paid directors, managers or employees part vi sec c - all policies are addendums to the bylaws and available upon request by any individual or entity part ix - ronding excess

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Transfer-based 990-EZ. The 990-EZ reports grants or member benefits, but it does not separate enough spending to show the nonprofit’s full delivery mix.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 17
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27.4%; rating input score 27
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.7%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27.4% of revenue deployed
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 6 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.