Henry Ford College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
382421276
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dearborn, MI, USA
Phone
3138459620
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,614,052
Expenses
$2,457,253
Assets
$26,775,848
Liabilities
$510,568

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RUSSELL KAVALHUNA (PRESIDENT OF HFC)
  • A REGINALD BEST (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • RUSSELL KAVALHUNA (PRESIDENT OF HFC): $410,124 total reported compensation
  • A REGINALD BEST (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $210,879 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 mission of the hfc foundation is to raise charitable support for henry ford college by building long-term relationships with business, civic and community leaders; alumni; corporate and philanthropic foundations; and individuals of influence and affluence, in support of the goals and objectives of the college and the educational and career aspirations of hfc students.

What it reported doing in 2024

Special education programs-donee of all scholarships, funds and programs is: henry ford college, 5101 evergreen, dearborn, mi 48128

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.5%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 87.1%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.9; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.5% of revenue deployed · 87.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $410K · 24 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.