County Engineers Association of Ohio

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
310641161
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6142210707
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,278,481
Expenses
$1,433,579
Assets
$1,095,838
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dean C Ringle (Executive Director Retired)
  • John Olivieri (Executive Director)
  • Patrick Ginnetti (President)
  • Scott Coleman (First Vice President)
  • Douglas Cade (Second Vice President)
  • Brett Boothe (Immediate Past President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dean C Ringle (Executive Director Retired): $149,583 total reported compensation
  • John Olivieri (Executive Director): $15,663 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 unite the county engineers of Ohio into an association to promote the best practices and policies in the administration of county government for the benefit of the people of the State of Ohio.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provides resources, assistance, training, professional leadership, and a vehicle for interaction for county engineers and their staff to assist them in providing better service to the public. Members receive publications, including the Annual Engineers Roster, as well as various other information via the website. To cooperate with governmental agencies, federal, state and local, and other organizations in developing, promoting and maintaining practical, efficient and financially sound administration of county government. To devise, promote and maintain workable legislation relating to the administration of county government and issue special bulletins about critical state and national legislative matters.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 71
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.1%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 19 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $149K reported
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.