Onewest Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473080680
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-T 2020
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Phone
5029075147
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,297,537
Expenses
$1,605,185
Assets
$6,302,959
Liabilities
$1,734,390

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EVON J SMITH (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • EVON J SMITH (PRESIDENT & CEO): $224,533 total reported compensation
  • DREEMA JACKSON (DIRECTOR/COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR): $2,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Onewest is a non-profit corporation that is establishing new pathways to private and public capital in an effort to generate sustainable economic development and neighborhood revitalization in west louisville in partnership with community residents.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization aims to stimulate economic development and community revitalization in west louisville, with a primary focus on the built environment. By focusing on land use, infrastracture needs, urban designs, and an overall improved "sense of place", onewest's goal is to bring a shared prosperity back to west louisville, which in turn lifts the entire louisville community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.5%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 53%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.93; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.5% of revenue deployed · 53% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $850K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $225K · 31 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $465K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.