CISE Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261590372
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5134213131
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,828,484
Expenses
$1,166,404
Assets
$32,839,979
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Samuel R Burchenal (Vice President)
  • Phillip R McHugh (Vice President)
  • Donald L Mellott Jr (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Phillip R McHugh (Vice President): $228,951 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The specific purposes for which the foundation is formed are to provide financial support, and otherwise engage in or support efforts, activities, operations or projects intended to provide to children and families who are among the most in need of financial support the benefit of educational opportunities offered by those catholic schools that are a part of, or within the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Ohio ("archdiocese") or by any other catholic schools otherwise located in the greater Cincinnati area, in all such cases in the sole discretion of the foundation's board of directors and thereby contributing to a better future for the diverse community served by the archdiocese and such schools.

What it reported doing in 2024

CISE Foundation ensures that a stable, permanent source of funding is available, now and in the future, to support catholic education for less fortunate children in Cincinnati. For the year ended June 30, 2025, the foundation distributed $925,416 to the catholic inner-city schools education fund in keeping with the foundation's mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 94
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.4%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $47.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 75.8%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 28.15; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.4% of revenue deployed · 79.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $925K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $229K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.