Oldham County Educational Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611165130
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Crestwood, KY, USA
Phone
5023968522
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$184,883
Expenses
$112,933
Assets
$81,530
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Aleah Schutze (President)
  • Mary Whittemore (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Aleah Schutze (President)
  • Mary Whittemore (Vice President)
  • Sarah Stucker (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

We raise funds to meet the needs in our school district which are not covered by the state budget. This directly impacts the quality of education our students receive in the classroom! We support the implementation of new technology, innovative projects, specialized equipment for special needs, and programs which go above and beyond the traditional core subjects. Through our support of STEM programs, the arts at CAPAA, literacy development, early childhood education, and teacher grants, The Educational Foundation is able to make a yearly impact in each and every one of our Oldham County Schools!

What it reported doing in 2024

Pyramid Awards have been a keystone program of OCEF that has been sustained from the beginning of the foundation in 1989. These individual grants up to $1250 are competitively awarded to teachers or staff for the most engaging classroom project applications each year. Our board believes strongly that these innovations can maintain Oldham County Schools as one of the best school districts, and that our educators should have resources to make them a reality.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.2%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 93.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $25.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38.9%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.2% of revenue deployed · 93.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $106K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.