Key Biscayne Community Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300239421
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Key Biscayne, FL, USA
Phone
3053612770
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,933,438
Expenses
$5,166,691
Assets
$20,637,046
Liabilities
$518,894

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MELISSA MCCAUGHAN WHITE (EXECUTIVE DI): $179,792 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 organization holds fundraising events and otherwise raises funds in order to make grants that benefit the community. Multiple grants, were paid during the year to benefit the community. In addition, several events served to educate members of the community about services and benefits available in the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Our mission is to enable, facilitate, and empower residents to make a positive difference in the local and greater communities through programs, grant making, fiscal sponsorship, and community leadership. The key biscayne community foundation also offers grants to support charitable organizations on and off the island. We believe that we are a community within a community, so the foundation looks to improve the quality of life for both the residents of key biscayne and greater miami- dade county. The key biscayne community foundation partners with local organizations to facilitate change, build community support, and create long-term sustainability for families and communities in need. These goals are reached through a collective impact approach and through other forms of collaboration.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.2%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 91.4%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $50.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th 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: 98%; rating input score 98; 29th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 56.7%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.99; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.2% of revenue deployed · 91.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $104K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 40 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 39 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.