Council of Independent Nebraska Colleges Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 470399855
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Bellevue, NE, USA
- Phone
- 4023391660
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,004,190
- Expenses
- $828,945
- Assets
- $6,837,201
- Liabilities
- $150,967
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TREVA HAUGAARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MARY HAWKINS (DIRECTOR): $607,380 total reported compensation
- ROGER HUGHES (DIRECTOR): $461,216 total reported compensation
- DR DARRIN GOOD (CHAIR): $408,637 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The council of indepependent Nebraska colleges foundation exists to provide operating funds and scholarship support for students attending Nebraska's independent institutions of excellence.
What it reported doing in 2025
Provide financial, operating, and scholarship support for independent colleges and universities in Nebraska.(a) to enhance and promote independent, not-for-profit higher education in Nebraska;(b) to be a collective voice for excellence and choice in higher education for all students;(c) to conduct public policy advocacy that helps further achievement of corporation's charitable purposes and mission;(d) to gather and disseminate information and reserach about the performance and contributions of the independent, not-for-profit colleges and universities in the state of Nebraska;(e) to be a source of supplemental financial support for students of the members;(f) to explore and assist with consortium grant applications for members to advance their missions; and(g) to explore and assist in developing collaborative services, such as group purchasing or shared services among members.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Member-benefit provider. The nonprofit used 83% of its reported program spending for member benefits.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 44
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.3%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 65.2%; rating input score 65
- Fundraising efficiency: $1.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 20%; rating input score 20; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 17.5%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.25; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 69.2%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.3% of revenue deployed · 65.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $541K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $607K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 14 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 20/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.