The Chatfield Edge

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
310840764
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Loveland, OH, USA
Phone
5138753344
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community or Junior Colleges

Reported finances

Revenue
$639,499
Expenses
$969,013
Assets
$8,012,561
Liabilities
$68,934

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT ELMORE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT ELMORE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $153,905 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The chatfield edge is a nonprofit organization that offers a unique approach to supporting first-generation and non-traditional students as they gain success in life through education. Built upon the 180-year-old educational history of the ursulines of brown county and the legacy of chatfield college, the chatfield edge combines student support services, scholarships, and mentoring to empower individuals to achieve their life goals. Services include college and free application for federal student aid (fafsa) application support, career counseling, mentoring, and scholarship assistance. The chatfield edge is also a member of the greater cincinnati collegiate connection (gc3).

What it reported doing in 2024

The goal of the chatfield edge is to provide support to first-generation and non-traditional students as they gain success in life through education. The chatfield edge combines student support services, scholarships, and mentoring to empower individuals to achieve their life goals. We encourage individuals to reach outside of themselves to serve others by providing servant-leader guidance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 40.7%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 44.5%; rating input score 44; 28th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -51.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.27; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.9%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.8% of revenue deployed · 40.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $394K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $154K · 17 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.