Hamilton County Special Olympics

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311135710
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5132712606
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$358,891
Expenses
$316,717
Assets
$541,428
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNE KNODLE (PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD)
  • BEN MELILLO (VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD)
  • JANET SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANET SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $62,568 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of special olympics is to provide year-round sports training and athletic competition in a variety of olympic-type sports for children and adults with mental and developmental disabilities in order to create continuing opportunities for them to develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience the joy of achievement, be included in the community, build skills, and make friends.

What it reported doing in 2015

The following are some of the ongoing programs that serve over 1800 athletes: aquaticsathleticsbasketballbocce ballbowlingequestrianfishinggolfgymnasticspower liftingweekly night out activities programsroller skatingskiingsoccersoftballspring gamessummer games (track and field events)tennisvolleyballwinter games (primarily skiing)other miscellaneous programs

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.9%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 65.5%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

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: 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: 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.8%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.71; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.9% of revenue deployed · 65.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $208K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $63K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 58/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.