Cincinnati-Ukraine Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311204552
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5134467233
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Promotion of International Understanding

Reported finances

Revenue
$91,604
Expenses
$65,359
Assets
$126,994
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Susan Neaman (Vice President)
  • Robert Herring (President)

People named in this filing

  • Steven Hirschberg (Board Member)
  • Alexander Etlin (Board Member)
  • Jay DeWitt (Board Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To establish goodwill, understanding, and cooperation between the people of Cincinnati and the people of Kharkiv and thereby develop lasting friendships and increased interchange of ideas, goods, and services.

What it reported doing in 2025

Humanitarian Aid to Ukraine - When the war started on Febuary 24, 2022, the prognosis was far from certain. Would the Ukrainian armed forces mount any credible defense. Would the war be over in a matter of days with the surrender of Kiev. What would happen to Kharkiv and the people with whom CKSCP had collaborated and worked with over the past years. How could we help alleviate the suffering of the Ukrainian population. Once it became clear that Ukraine was mounting a solid defense, that the government would not surrender, and that Kharkiv would not be occupied, CKSCP began the task of identifying ways to transfer funds to trusted sources. The Kharkiv Red Cross became the primary boots on the ground organization. Other organization focused on cultural events, teachers, PTSD, training, and rehabilition have also been identified and helped with funding.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.9%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 94.8%; 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.7%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.94; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -80.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -66.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 29.9% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.9% of revenue deployed · 94.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $62K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.