Salt Lake City Rotary Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942476147
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kaysville, UT, USA
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Men's Service Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$367,600
Expenses
$349,486
Assets
$7,791,527
Liabilities
$102,647

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUDY FANG (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JUDY FANG (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTIAN DEPUTY (VICE PRESIDE)
  • KARMEEN KULKARNI (SECRETARY)

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

The organization's mission is to administer funds for such charitable, educational, and scientific purposes as embraced in the activities of the rotary club of salt lake city.

What it reported doing in 2024

Transitional housing through a variety of government and private grants, the organization purchased a building and invested in converting it into a transitional housing complex for individuals aging out of the foster care system in a prior year. The organization has entered into a long-term contract with the state of Utah through which the organization will provide the state use of the building for purposes of running a transitional housing program. The state does not charge rent to program participants and is responsible for most of the operating and maintenance costs of the building.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 4.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 22.29; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.3% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $292K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.