Cincinnati Human Relations Commission

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
310526228
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5133523237
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Intergroup, Race Relations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$900,675
Expenses
$820,965
Assets
$60,638
Liabilities
$255,586

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERICKA L KING-BETTS (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERICKA L KING-BETTS (Executive Director): $81,065 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To help our community overcome prejudice and discrimination, build mutual

What it reported doing in 2015

Cincinnati initiative to reduce violence (cirv) history: the cincinnati initiative to reduce violence is a multi-agency and community collaborative effort initiated in 2007 designed to reduce gun-violence and associated homicides in the city of cincinnati. Role of the community outreach advocates (coa's) - the community outreach advocates (coa's) are part of the cincinnati initiative to reduce violence (cirv), a multi-agency collaboration with the university of cincinnati. During fy16, the coa's wereinvolved in more than 300 incidences in cincinnati. This is more than a 200% increases over fy15.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 37
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 70.3%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $36.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.9%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 4.21; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.3% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64% of revenue deployed · 70.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $577K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $81K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.