The Chelco Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821794757
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Defuniak Springs, FL, USA
Phone
8508922111
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Reported finances

Revenue
$212,992
Expenses
$134,416
Assets
$2,036,281
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN RHODES DIRECTOR (COMP IS NOT PAID BY THE FO): $948,220 total reported compensation
  • ROBIN SHAW DIRECTOR (COMP IS NOT PAID BY THE FO): $273,796 total reported compensation
  • BRADY BEARDEN VICE-PRESIDENT (COMP IS NOT PAID BY THE FO): $29,400 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 organization was established by the board of trustees of choctawhatchee electric cooperative, inc. (chelco) to serve as a phhilanthropic agency to assist individuals and organizations in the local community as well as across the nation and throughout the world. Donations made to the foundation are made voluntarily by employees and others who wish to support chelco's community outreach, which includes items like scholarships and grants for charitable organizations.

What it reported doing in 2025

Initiatives designed to benefit local charitable organizations, including american cancer society, american heart association, emerald coast autism center, emerald coast children's advocacy center, children in crisis and matrix community christmas program, reflecting the foundation's commitment to community service and social responsibility.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 87.8%; rating input score 88; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 36.9%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.15; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 365%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 64.4% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -47.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.8% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $131K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $948K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 21 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.