Ohio District 5 Area Agency on Aging Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 453199263
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Ontario, OH, USA
- Phone
- 4195244144
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $500,091
- Expenses
- $492,866
- Assets
- $3,485,034
- Liabilities
- $967,611
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DUANA PATTON (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- DUANA PATTON (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $294,894 total reported compensation
- LORI ROWLAND (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $139,395 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 help carry out the mission of Ohio district 5 area agency on aging, inc. Which is to provide leadership for a collaborative service and resource network that supports individual choice, independence, and dignity for older and disabled adults.
What it reported doing in 2024
Expenses incurred to operate for the benefit of and to carry out the purposes of Ohio district 5 area agency on aging, inc. Activities include serving the elderly citizens of ashland, crawford, huron, knox, marion, morrow, richland, seneca and wyandot counties; receiving gifts, contributions and bequests for support and benefit of the area agency on aging; investing and reinvesting any and all funds so received; disbursing funds to or for the benefit of the area agency on aging.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some related-organization disclosures are missing.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 51
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 98.6%; rating input score 99
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 1.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.07; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 98.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $493K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $295K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.