Interact for Change
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 300065901
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Phone
- 5134586600
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health Support Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $897,509
- Expenses
- $963,228
- Assets
- $1,170,778
- Liabilities
- $7,601
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KATE SCHRODER (PRESIDENT & CEO, DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KATE SCHRODER (PRESIDENT & CEO, DIRECTOR): $355,116 total reported compensation
- PATRICIA RUWE (VP, FINANCE & OPERATIONS): $234,849 total reported compensation
- ROSS MEYER (VP, STRATEGY & SECRETARY): $220,802 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Interact for change's mission is to inspire, lead and support active giving and innovative philanthropic solutions.
What it reported doing in 2024
Restricted fund expenses: include the day-to-day costs associated with running the programs as well as the administrative fees charged by interact for change, trust fees charged by custodial bank and investment advisor fees.restricted funds-hey*! Greater cincinnati fund fka youth mental health collaborative: $756,131restricted funds-data for equity collaborative: $75,202restricted funds-administration fees: $4,760restricted funds-other expenses: $3,835*hey=hopeful empowered youth
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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 - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 99.1%; rating input score 99
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: 78.3%; rating input score 78; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 21st 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: -7.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.22; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 34.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -22.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -20.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -19.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $955K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $355K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $558K reported
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 6 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.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.