Richland County Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 340872883
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Mansfield, OH, USA
- Phone
- 4195253020
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $20,378,812
- Expenses
- $9,964,023
- Assets
- $228,440,895
- Liabilities
- $10,735,378
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- ALLURA WATSON (INCOMING PRE): $152,772 total reported compensation
- RACHEL WEBER (DIRECTOR OF): $136,633 total reported compensation
- BRADFORD S GROVES (OUTGOING PRE): $84,567 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 mission of the richland county foundation is to improve the quality of life in richland county through strategic philanthropy and community leadership. Grants are distributed for charitable purposes in the areas of community and economic development, health and human services, education, arts and culture, environment and churches.
What it reported doing in 2024
The richland county foundation is an organization that makes grants primarily from the investment earnings of its component funds. These grants support the programs and operations of many charitable organizations in the local community as well as students attending college. During 2024, 641 grants totaling 7,512,078 were awarded to 160 charitable organizations. In addition, 430 scholarship grants totaling 886,732 were awarded to local students pursuing a post secondary education.
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 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 90
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.3%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $21.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 51.1%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 22.93; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 76.3% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $139K reported
- Consistency: 36 of 38 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 96 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 89 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.
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.