Starved Rock Country Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474762762
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Ottawa, IL, USA
Phone
8152522906
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,669,907
Expenses
$1,307,954
Assets
$3,858,420
Liabilities
$1,194,616

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • PAMELA BECKETT (Secretary): $53,623 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Starved Rock Country Community Foundation (SRCCF) is a grant-making public charity dedicated to improving the lives of people in LaSalle, Bureau and Putnam Counties. Our goal is to bring together the financial resources of individuals, families and businesses to support effective non-profit agencies and other local charitable initiatives; to create and manage scholarships for local students and to provide philanthropic leadership throughout the communities we serve.OUR MISSIONb

What it reported doing in 2025

The Starved Rock Country Community Foundation (SRCCF) is a grant-making public charity dedicated to improving the lives of people in LaSalle, Bureau and Putnam Counties. Our goal is to bring together the financial resources of individuals, families and businesses to support effective non-profit agencies and other local charitable initiatives; to create and manage scholarships for local students and to provide philanthropic leadership throughout the communities we serve.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 60% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.4%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.7%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.95; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.4% of revenue deployed · 74.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $977K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $54K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.