Kishwaukee College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237433949
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Malta, IL, USA
Phone
8158252086
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,501,062
Expenses
$1,211,062
Assets
$10,260,167
Liabilities
$32,433

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR LAURIE BOROWICZ (DIRECTOR/COLLEGE PRESIDENT)
  • MS ROSE TREML (PRESIDENT)
  • MS AMY OSTER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DR KAYTE HAMEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR LAURIE BOROWICZ (DIRECTOR/COLLEGE PRESIDENT): $338,334 total reported compensation
  • DR KAYTE HAMEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $163,150 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 help shape the future and enhance the continuous development of kishwaukee college by providing student scholarships, instructional enhancements, and facility improvements.

What it reported doing in 2024

Program enhancements: the kishwaukee college foundation bolsters a quality education by providing program enhancements to several programs each year. By making $321,189 available, the foundation was able to help provide equipment and materials to programs such as ged, math, science, library operations, athletics and many others, as well as classes to non-profit organizations. The foundation also used these dollars to establish new opportunities for several college programs by awarding innovation awards to many different areas within the college. Student services, instructional design, art, learning skills, and instruction programs were all able to enhance their services. These funds help our staff and our faculty provide real opportunity to the students we serve.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 89% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 68.9%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.3%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.47; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91% of revenue deployed · 68.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $835K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $338K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 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: 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.