Kershaw County Public Schools Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
412206742
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Camden, SC, USA
Phone
8034328416
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,002,533
Expenses
$1,901,456
Assets
$58,711,320
Liabilities
$58,711,320

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GENE BRANHAM (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • J HARRISON GOODWIN (KCSD SUPERIN): $266,634 total reported compensation
  • BRAD WILLARD (KCSD CFO): $215,573 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 mission of kershaw county public schools foundation is to acquire, construct, finance, pledge, improve, maintain, operate, manage, lease, and dispose of school buildings and other public education facilities for the use and benefit of kershaw county school district and to encourage and promote public education through cooperative arrangements with governmental entities and organizations exempt under section 501(c)(3) that provide public education in kershaw county, sc.

What it reported doing in 2024

Installment purchase revenue bonds and installment purchase refunding revenue bonds were issued by the foundation and were used for the aquisition and construction of major capital facilities that are being leased back to the school district of kershaw county, sc. During fy25, the organization continued to service the debt on these facilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

MIXED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 21%; rating input score 21
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 78.9%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 30.88; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.2%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 21% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $267K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 21/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.