Findlay-hancock County Alliance Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 341170594
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Findlay, OH, USA
- Phone
- 4194223313
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $160,228
- Expenses
- $146,186
- Assets
- $816,738
- Liabilities
- $663,505
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANIEL SHEAFFER (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- CHRISTINE KELLER (DIRECTOR - EDC): $167,609 total reported compensation
- DIONNE NEUBAUER (Director - Chamber): $160,936 total reported compensation
- ALISSA PRESTON (DIRECTOR - CVB): $129,659 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 findlay-hancock county chamber foundation (dba findlay-hancock county alliance foundation) was created in 1975 for the purpose of receiving and managing charitable funds dedicated toward programs of research, education, and scientific endeavors in hancock county. Contribution income is received primarily from businesses in hancock county, Ohio.
What it reported doing in 2025
Hancock leadership the hancock leadership program is designed to develop and cultivate all people with a passion to serve our community through a dynamic learning experience that encourages self-discovery, fosters relationships and inspires stewardship. The hancock leadership program is a nationally recognized nine-month seminar program that meets one day a month to explore and learn more about the core of our community.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% 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: 49
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 52.6%; rating input score 53
- Program expense ratio: 57.5%; rating input score 58
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8.8%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.59; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.81; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 50.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -15.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -6.4% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 52.6% of revenue deployed · 57.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $84K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $168K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.