Lagrange County Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351834679
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lagrange, IN, USA
Phone
2604634363
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,327,153
Expenses
$1,344,761
Assets
$36,853,687
Liabilities
$322,194

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RENEA BOOTS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • OCTAVIA YODER (EXECUTIVE DI): $98,299 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the lagrange county community foundation is to inspire and sustain generosity, leadership and service. We connect donors to charitable causes, award grants and scholarships, and support community initiatives to enhance the quality of life in lagrange county.

What it reported doing in 2025

Grantmaking: the lagrange county community foundation's unrestricted endowment funds and field of interest funds respond to changing needs in lagrange county. The community foundation directs grants to charitable projects that improve the quality of life in lagrange county in arts and culture, health and human services, community development, education, environment and recreation. The community foundation's grants advisory committee reviews applications and makes funding recommendations to the board of directors. The community foundation also awards grants to nonprofit organizations as directed by funds established by community donors. (continued on sch o)

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 78% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.7%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 70.3%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 89.2%; rating input score 89; 31st 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: 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: 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: 59.6%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 27.41; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.7% of revenue deployed · 70.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $946K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $98K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.