Keep Louisiana Beautiful Foundationinc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
721499919
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mandeville, LA, USA
Phone
9857780067
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$391,863
Expenses
$421,037
Assets
$836,296
Liabilities
$9,822

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KARLEY FRANKIC (FOUNDATION DIRECTOR): $91,346 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote personal, corporate, and community responsibility for a clean and beautiful Louisiana.

What it reported doing in 2024

Creating and supporting public/private partnerships to deal with the problems of litter through the following areas:1) influence positive behavior through education. Klb has a litter abatement curriculum for k to 5th grade and conducts teacher workshops throughout the state. Klb also supports a motorist education program and public awareness program.2) increase community capacity. Klb provides training, professional development, and financial support through grants to the kab affiliate network comprised of 39 statewide affiliates. Klb also conducts a state conference, awards program, and regional meetings to support best practices for a clean and beautiful Louisiana. Klb manages a grants program for kab affiliates, non-profits, and governmental entities to fund local programs to reduce litter, increase recycling, straighten litter enforcement and expand education on litter abatement. 3) improve policy and infrastructure. Klb networks with state and local leaders to provide support for policies and laws that support a clean and green Louisiana. Klb offers free to the public sample ordinance handbooks, how to establish litter court handbooks, ten environmental education lesson plans for k to 5th grade and yearly outcome reports.4) communicating the anti-litter message through a comprehensive media campaign and raising awareness to "love the boot. Don't pollute."

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 87% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 64.8%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.99; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.7%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70% of revenue deployed · 64.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $273K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 27 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $1.3M reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 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: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.