Piedmont Educational Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
566061289
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Hickory, NC, USA
Phone
8283227550
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Sports Associations &Training Facilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$570,065
Expenses
$474,496
Assets
$458,545
Liabilities
$1,474

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

39 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RYAN EDWARDS (PRESIDENT)
  • BOB FINCHER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BEN BUNDY (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR FREDERICK K WHITT (TRUSTEE): $378,311 total reported compensation
  • PETER KENDALL (VP FINANCE): $193,233 total reported compensation
  • TERRI LIVINGSTON (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $72,786 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose for which this corporation is organized and for which it shall be maintained are to aid, assist and promote by donations and otherwise lenoir rhyne college, hickory, North Carolina, and, in the interest of said college, to provide scholarships and other AIDS to worthy young people desirous of obtaining education in attendance at such college and to assist by grant, donation, or otherwise, the teaching staff and faculty of such college.

What it reported doing in 2017

Designated gifts (program support) to lenoir-rhyne university

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 89
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.8%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 60.8%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 89.5%; rating input score 89; 21st 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -45% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -22.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.8% of revenue deployed · 60.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 34 of 38 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $288K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $378K · 39 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2017
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.