The Aultman Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208090459
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Canton, OH, USA
Phone
3303636352
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,112,824
Expenses
$511,384
Assets
$1,816,662
Liabilities
$53,983

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EDWARD J ROTH III (DIRECTOR/CEO-AHF)

Highest reported compensation

  • EDWARD J ROTH III (DIRECTOR/CEO-AHF): $579,285 total reported compensation
  • MARK D WRIGHT (DIRECTOR/CFO-AHF): $349,112 total reported compensation
  • TERESA L WURST MD (DIRECTOR): $194,378 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The aultman foundation raises and administers funds in order to support and promote education and wellness outreach programming that will improve the health of the community. The foundation provides grant funding to area nonprofit organizations that provide services focusing on health, education and human services - with special consideration for the underserved members of the population such as the poor, elderly, and children.

What it reported doing in 2014

Twice yearly, the aultman foundation accepts grant requests from 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations. Endeavors that received the aultman foundation's financial support included education and mentoring programs, literacy programs, wellness programs, senior care programs and more.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.2%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 85.5%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3,121.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 54.5%; rating input score 55; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 54%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.55; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.3%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.2% of revenue deployed · 85.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $437K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $579K · 11 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 41 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 55/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.