Lane County Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832155617
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Dighton, KS, USA
Phone
7852120884
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$727,300
Expenses
$281,338
Assets
$3,159,771
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Casey Venters (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Casey Venters (Executive Director): $68,000 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 Lane County Community Foundation (the Foundation) is to improve the quality of life in Lane County, Kansas and communities within Lane County, and to ensure that the communities in and around Lane County will forever remain the type of community that will attract people of all ages to live, work and raise a family.

What it reported doing in 2025

We want organizations working together to accomplish goals that are beneficial to the Lane County community. We provide necessary funding for scholarships and grants, which benefit charitable, religious, and governmental organizations, as well as to individuals for the furtherance of education and for basic needs for individuals facing a significant hardship. Most grants are awarded through an open and nondiscriminatory, competitive application process and are reviewed by a committee of volunteers before approval by our board of directors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 22
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 19.9%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 33.2%; rating input score 33
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 79.9%; rating input score 80; 38th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 61.3%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.23; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -21% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 19.9% of revenue deployed · 33.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $93K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.