Lake Land College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237100515
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mattoon, IL, USA
Phone
2172345363
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community or Junior Colleges

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,233,955
Expenses
$1,584,711
Assets
$19,472,255
Liabilities
$510,592

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LARRY BLACKERBY (PRESIDENT)
  • THOMAS WHITE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RICHARD HARTKE (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTI DONSBACH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTI DONSBACH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $133,453 total reported compensation
  • MADGE SHOOT (TREASURER): $125,712 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Lake land college foundation was established to assist lake land college in developing and enhancing the education opportunities and services to its students, alumni, and citizens of the district. The mission of the foundation is to provide student scholarships through funds contributed by individuals, agencies, and corporations.

What it reported doing in 2024

The lake land college foundation was organized and operates exclusively for education and charitable purposes designed to promote the welfare of lake land college, mattoon, Illinois, and its students. The major thrust of the foundation is to provide scholarships to lake land college students. During the past year, through the generous donations of area individuals, businesses, and organizations, the foundation awarded $750,252 in scholarships to over 600 deserving students. These scholarships vary in amounts awarded and criteria. First accomplishment for awarding is based on the donor's wishes and/or guidelines established by the lake land college foundation board of directors. Donors who reach a specified level of lifetime giving are recognized on an annual basis and also have the opportunity to meet their scholarship recipient(s) at an annual reception.donors represent a diverse background from the 4,000 square mile district. Many donors have been dedicated to helping students for more than two decades. They believe in the community college and are committed to ensuring that the region has a trained workforce to meet the needs of local business and industry. Donors are also expanding their support by providing additional resources for the unmet financial needs of the college due to declining state support and a sluggish local property tax base.

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 74% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.2%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 64%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 29.1%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.29; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.4%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.2% of revenue deployed · 64% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $133K · 23 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.