Community Foundation for Brevard Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
592114988
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Melbourne, FL, USA
Phone
3217525505
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,213,253
Expenses
$4,068,772
Assets
$51,808,614
Liabilities
$3,872,303

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THERESA GRIMISON (PRESIDENT/CE)

Highest reported compensation

  • THERESA GRIMISON (PRESIDENT/CE): $210,263 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To inspire and support powerful, rewarding philanthropy and engage in civic leadership to make local communities stronger and more vibrant.

What it reported doing in 2024

Grantmaking: community foundation for brevard administers more than 150 individual, family, and corporate funds, and manages multiple competitive and non-competitive grant programs. Built on elements of a thriving community and guided by donor intent, the grants support community needs and issues like arts and culture, basic human needs, education, economic opportunity, community leadership, environment and animal welfare, medical research, and more. The foundation's staff and volunteer advisory committees carry out strategies and approve grants and scholarships. Grants support charitable endeavors in nearly every type and size of nonprofit organization; the majority are located in brevard county, but grants can be made to any us-based charity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as 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 some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.2%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 96.8%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.1%; rating input score 95; 24th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 69.2%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.73; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.2% of revenue deployed · 96.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $210K · 18 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • 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: 89 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 88 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.