Herbert V Prochnow Educational Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391466758
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082431945
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,071,556
Expenses
$277,222
Assets
$10,880,405
Liabilities
$6,767

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL KATZ PRESIDENT (& CEO (EFF. 05/2024))
  • KIRBY DAVIDSON FORMER (PRESIDENT & CEO (TERM 12/2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • KIRBY DAVIDSON FORMER (PRESIDENT & CEO (TERM 12/2024)): $384,753 total reported compensation
  • PAUL KATZ PRESIDENT (& CEO (EFF. 05/2024)): $148,973 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To initiate, fund, market, and implement programs and activities which support the mission of the graduate school of banking, inc.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the year, the herbert prochnow educational foundation, inc continued its mission to support the graduate school of banking, inc. By funding curriculum development initiatives. The foundation provided resources to design and enhance course materials, instructional content, and program offerings to ensure alignment with current banking industry practices and leadership development needs. Activities included collaboration with subject-matter experts, faculty, and an instructional design organization in the development of one new educational module.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.1%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 51%; rating input score 51
  • 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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 77.3%; rating input score 77; 17th 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: 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 74.1%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 39.25; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.1% of revenue deployed · 51% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 22 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $141K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $385K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.