James and Helen Hovorka Endowment Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
362942011
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Cedar Rapids, IA, USA
Phone
3193628500
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Named Trusts N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$79,334
Expenses
$1,148,371
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TERRI CHRISTOFFERSEN (VICE PRESIDENT & TRUSTEE)
  • GAIL NAUGHTON (PRESIDENT & TRUSTEE)

Highest reported compensation

  • GAIL NAUGHTON (PRESIDENT & TRUSTEE): $119,444 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Scholarship support to the council of higher education

What it reported doing in 2015

This organization is restricted by the will & testament of james and helen hovorka, the donors & founders of the endowment fund, named in their memory. The proceeds are used solely for granting scholarships to needy and qualified students of czech and slovak descent. Income collected from investment of the fund is collected and credited to the support organization and is usually paid in the fall of the year. The council of higher education then grants scholarships after considering all of the applications received during the summer months. The scholarships are paid out during the fall semester of the school year. The counci of higher education is the only organization supported by the endowment fund. The organization dissolved in december of 2015.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 57
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.4%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -1,347.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 183.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $119K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.