Heart of Ohio Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
344428215
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Mansfield, OH, USA
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Boy Scouts of America

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,653,860
Expenses
$1,810,946
Assets
$9,231,223
Liabilities
$166,102

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

37 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES L MILLER (PRESIDENT)
  • DANIEL P DEVILLE (PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMY HELLER (SCOUT EXECUTIVE): $87,966 total reported compensation
  • BRAD W BODOH (PAST SCOUT EXECUTIVE): $77,932 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the heart of Ohio council, boy scouts of america is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the scout oath and law.

What it reported doing in 2016

The mission of the heart of Ohio council, boy scouts of america is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the scout oath and law. The heart of Ohio council accomplishes its exempt purpose through programs for youth in 9 counties in Ohio and through the operation of an outdoor camp. The scout oath is - on my honor i will do my best to do my duty to god and my country and to obey the scout law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.the scout law - a scout is - trustworthy, obedient, loyal, cheerful, helpful, thrifty, friendly, brave, courteous, clean, kind & reverent

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.4%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.6%; rating input score 96; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.3%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.1; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 33 of 35 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 37 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.