Goodwill Legacy Group Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237148440
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3175244313
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Goodwill Industries

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,160,293
Expenses
$15,694,089
Assets
$72,899,823
Liabilities
$2,434,681

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

Leadership & pay

47 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KENT KRAMER (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • RACHEL EBLE (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF PHILANTHROPY OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • KENT KRAMER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $786,620 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW FORTNEY (SECRETARY & TREASURER): $344,407 total reported compensation
  • RACHEL EBLE (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF PHILANTHROPY OFFICER): $272,863 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The organization's purpose is to solicit financial support from the general public and to disburse such funds to support goodwill legacy group (glg), goodwill education initiatives, inc. (gei), and goodwill of puerto rico (gpr) to help establish new programs or services for disabled and disadvantaged individuals in central and southern Indiana, further glg's educational efforts, provide college scholarships to qualifying graduates of gei's charter schools and attract promising college students to careers in human services by providing scholarships and internships.

What it reported doing in 2024

Goodwill legacy group (glg) and its subsidiaries, gw commercial services, inc. (gwcs), goodwill education initiatives, inc. (gei), and goodwill of puerto rico (gpr) together with goodwill legacy group foundation (the foundation) (collectively referred to as (goodwill) are Indiana non-profit organizations that offer employment, education and related services to disadvantaged adults and young people throughout central and southern Indiana. Goodwill defines disadvantaged individuals as those with a barrier to employment such as a disability, a criminal history, and/or a low education level (less than a high school diploma).-continued on schedule o-

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.5%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th 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: 87%; rating input score 87; 19th 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: 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: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.65; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.6%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 41 of 41 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $787K · 47 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.