Walter Scott Family Foundation
Legal name: Suzanne & Walter Scott Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 363727897
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Omaha, NE, USA
- Phone
- 4025021122
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Named Trusts N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $480,205,807
- Expenses
- $49,947,387
- Assets
- $965,051,014
- Liabilities
- $17,632,832
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CALVIN SISSON (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- RICHARD EAKIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
- KEN MOREANO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - NOAK)
Highest reported compensation
- CALVIN SISSON (PRESIDENT & CEO): $973,900 total reported compensation
- KEN MOREANO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - NOAK): $611,858 total reported compensation
- CHRISTI ANNIN (CFO): $326,393 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To support the Founders’ vision and interests by investing in education, developing leaders and advancing communities.
What it reported doing in 2024
The foundation was organized and is operated generally for the benefit of, or to carry out the purposes of, the omaha community foundation. The omaha community foundation's mission is to enhance the quality of life of the citizens in Nebraska and southwest Iowa by identifying and addressing current anticipated needs and raising, managing, and distributing funds. In addition, the foundation distributes funds to other charitable organizations. Consistent with the omaha community foundation, the foundation supports the university of Nebraska, omaha campus in various projects.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 63% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 35
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 68
- Sustainability: 87
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 12.8%; rating input score 13
- Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 89.6%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.32; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 41.4% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 12.8% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $40.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $974K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.1M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 71 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 73 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 13/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.