Teays Valley Amanda-clearcreek Dist Science Study Enrichment Program

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
317170009
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Ashville, OH, USA
Phone
7409832557
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$188,357
Expenses
$59,500
Assets
$7,910,362
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

This exempt entity was created to work with the Estate of Doctor R.S. Hosler to further the advancement of math and science studies in two school districts in Ohio, Teays Valley and Amanda Clearcreek. Doctor Hosler had funded a testamentary trust to pay for the medical training of qualified graduates from the two school districts. Initially, the funds available for such students far exceeded the needs of such graduates because, owing to the poor science and math departments at the schools, few students could qualify for admission to medical school. The probate court having jurisdiction over Dr. Hoslers testamentary trust ageed that, if Dr. Hoslers trust was to be successful, some of the money should go to the schools to improve their math and science programs. The Enrichment Program was created, and the two school superintendents and the trustee of Dr. Hoslers trust constitute the Programs board. Although Dr. Hoslers trust primarily funds the medical students, if there are few such stu

What it reported doing in 2024

Direct funding for science and math enrichment at the teays valley and amanda clearcreek (Ohio) schools; financial assistance to public library

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.6%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 68.4%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 132.95; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 168.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $60K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule M noncash within contributions did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.