Keep Cincinnati Beautiful Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
310948219
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5133524382
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Environmental Beautification and Aesthetics

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,396,241
Expenses
$1,913,571
Assets
$3,514,265
Liabilities
$2,360,773

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jonathan Adee (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jonathan Adee (Executive Director): $117,414 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Keep Cincinnati Beautiful is an award-winning not for profit organization educating and encouraging individuals to take greater responsibility for improving their community environments.

What it reported doing in 2024

Part of the core mission of our organization is to uplift community-driven beautification efforts. We utilize community engagement in all of our program areas to ensure the goals that we work towards are in line with the wants and needs of the neighborhoods we work in. Working alongside stakeholders, partners, and residents allows us to be intentional in our efforts to equitably improve our city's public spaces. This collaboration allows us to understand the unique challenges and opportunities within each neighborhood, fostering a sense of ownership and pride among residents. The Safe and Clean initiative is intended for projects based on crime prevention through environmental design where improved beautification enhances community ownership and reduces violence. This funding is open for organizations prioritizing youth-led initiatives to promote positive physical changes in neighborhoods. Specific focus points are established for each grant cycle and include priorities like engaging youth leaders, promoting physical changes in environment and shared spaces, implementing crime prevention principles through environmental design, enhancing community ownership, and focusing on high-crime neighborhoods. The program was able to fund 24 projects in the last fiscal year contributing to an 18% decrease in crime for areas served. In addition our community engagement initiatives like Adopt-a-Spot saw to 138 community-led cleanups with 250 Adopt-a-Spot champions covering over 1,000 acres of public land.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 65% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.5%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 45.5%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 82.9%; rating input score 83; 22nd 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.1%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.84; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.67; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.2% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.5% of revenue deployed · 45.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $871K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $117K · 27 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $477K reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 15 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 37/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.