Junior League of Cincinnati

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
310576674
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5138719339
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Women's Service Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$329,234
Expenses
$399,132
Assets
$1,148,459
Liabilities
$75,515

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Katie Dulle (President Elect)
  • Kelly Barber (President)
  • Rene Robers (Past President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ashley Rouster (Managing Director): $77,885 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 Junior League of Cincinnati is an organization of women whose mission is to advance women's leadership for meaningful community impact through volunteer action, collaboration, and training.

What it reported doing in 2024

Improving communities- The JLC directly impacts our community through our projects and volunteerism. Our signature focus this past year was rooted in our partnership with HER Cincinnati. HER Cincinnati's mission is to empower women to break the cycles of poverty, addiction, and human trafficking. We envision a community where all women have the skills and the confidence to thrive. Our program efforts are focused in three areas: Housing, Education, and Recovery Services. In addition, our members supported various past programs through hundreds of volunteer hours to start-up and established non-profit organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.8%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 60.7%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -21.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.88; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.8% of revenue deployed · 60.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $242K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.