Jefferson State Community College Foundation, Inc.

Legal name: Jefferson State Community College Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237230697
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Birmingham, AL, USA
Phone
2058567884
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community or Junior Colleges

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$891,338
Expenses
$500,958
Assets
$4,182,643
Liabilities
$149,625

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

People named in this filing

  • STAN BATEMON (BOARD MEMBER)
  • FRANK BROCATO (BOARD MEMBER)
  • ANN FLORIE (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Jefferson State Community College Foundation, Inc. exists for the sole purpose of providing support for programs and activities, which enhance the quality of education and expand the educational opportunities for students enrolled at Jefferson State Community College. To achieve this purpose, the Foundation seeks to heighten community awareness of the mission and accomplishments of the College and to secure contributions and bequests, which will be used to support academic programs as well as scholarships.

What it reported doing in 2024

Expenditures are for the explicit purpose of advancing the educational services for jefferson state community college. Participation in these activities benefits a large population of sutdents, faculty, and staff. The organization provides support through student scholarships, selected faculty and staff professional development activities and college-community partnerships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.2%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 60.1%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 64.5%; rating input score 64; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 43.8%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.35; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 43.2% of revenue deployed · 60.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $301K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.