Nebraska Philanthropic Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832558124
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Omaha, NE, USA
Phone
5312835287
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,917,899
Expenses
$2,233,684
Assets
$2,741,786
Liabilities
$846,177

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK T MORRIS (PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN MORRIS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICK T MORRIS (PRESIDENT): $333,090 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN MORRIS (VICE PRESIDENT): $257,383 total reported compensation
  • CATHERINE FRENCH (FORMER DIRECTOR): $167,947 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The initial purpose of the organization is to enhance the general welfare of the state of Nebraska by providing fundraising support to public and charitable institutions and by assisting in the construction of facilities which will assist in achieving that goal. The organization was involved in several projects in 2024, further described below.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization assisted multiple other activities including: university of Nebraska ballfield facilities, university of Nebraska at omaha's basketball team nutrition table, university of Nebraska at lincoln's stadium, and other certain operating costs in connection with fulfilling its mission of providing fundraising and project management to charitable organizations in the state of Nebraska.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.7%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 62.5%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 48% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -33.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -30.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.7% of revenue deployed · 62.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $333K · 8 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.