Education Foundation of Sarasota County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
592320858
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sarasota, FL, USA
Phone
9419270965
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,183,939
Expenses
$3,917,610
Assets
$11,405,743
Liabilities
$5,260,751

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER VIGNE (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER VIGNE (PRESIDENT & CEO): $223,288 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 enhance the potential of students, promote excellence in teaching, and inspire innovation in education, guided by strategic philanthropy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Student programs-future-ready students: the education foundation delivers a comprehensive system of student support designed to ensure more students graduate high school with the purpose and clear plan for life after graduation. Through its future-ready approach, the foundation provides tiered services based on student need, including individualized coaching, targeted interventions, and universal access to resources.core services include one-on-one advising through student success coaches and school-based resiliency coaches, intensive support through the fuiture-ready scholars program, and targeted initiatives such as mentoring and recognition programs that promote persistence and achievement. The foundation also provides workshops on college, career, and financial aid readiness; access to scholarships and a community-wide scholarship database; and referrals for mental health services in partnership with local providers.these programs collectively support students in developing the knowledge, skills, and agency needed to successfully pursue postsecondary education, career training, military service, or employment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.7%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.91; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.7% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $223K · 19 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.