Knox County Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311768219
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mount Vernon, OH, USA
Phone
7403923270
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,658,750
Expenses
$6,459,347
Assets
$116,216,744
Liabilities
$21,397,034

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Jeffrey Scott (Executive Dir.): $158,470 total reported compensation
  • Marc Odenweller (Finance Dir.): $117,600 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 improve the quality of life in Knox County through planned charitable giving. To provide a vehicle for donors of varied interests to support charitable and community activities. To assess and respond to emerging and changing community needs in the fields of education, youth services, recreation, arts and culture, social services, and civic, economic and community development. To develop a permanent endowment for the community, and to serve as a catalyst for the initiation of vital projects.

What it reported doing in 2024

Awarded scholarships to Knox County students based upon established eligibility requirements and merit. Requirements include but are not limited to academic achievement, field of interest, and affiliations with specific schools or employers. Donors establish scholarship funds to assist qualifying students with tuition costs. The Foundation utilizies a scholarship committee that reviews application requests from graduating high school seniors and adults more than two years after high school graduation. Scholarships are available for degrees at two or four year colleges and universities as well as accredited trade & technical schools.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.8%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.6%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.99; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $191K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 45 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 45 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.