The Common Good of Preble County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832127994
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Eaton, OH, USA
Phone
9374566560
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$830,561
Expenses
$547,951
Assets
$954,825
Liabilities
$185,717

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RUDY ROTH (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER MCCARTY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER MCCARTY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $56,837 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 purpose of the common good of preble county is to mobilize community resources to help preble county residents meet their essential needs for the common good. It is the organizations intent to help households develope a stable path to self-sufficiency that promotes long-term stability by providing basic needs and connections to additional resources.

What it reported doing in 2025

The goal of the emergency assistance program is to provide resources to individuals and families experiencing crisis situations through the food pantry, clothing giveaway, and financial assistance programs. Staff meet individually with each household requesting assistance to assess their situation and provide referrals to additional community resources. The program seeks to help households move toward stability and self-sufficiency by addressing immediate basic needs.the food pantry responds to emergency food needs by providing up to five days of food, allowing families to bridge gaps in income or to secure other support such as snap benefits. As a choice food pantry, households select foods that best meet their family's dietary needs and preferences. Clients receive nonperishable items, milk, eggs, meat, and fresh produce to promote a balanced diet. In 2025, 3,042 households representing 7,974 individuals were served a 33% increase over 2024. Of those households, 224 were first time recipients and 20% required assistance only once. The food pantry utilizes 26 volunteers that provided 1,904 hours of service. The common good also serves as coordinator and fiduciary for the countywide milk program, purchasing and distributing milk to six food pantries. In 2025, 4,167 gallons of milk were distributed throughout the county. Additionally, the common good supported school-based pantries in every preble county school district. These pantries provide easy-to-eat foods for students to consume at school or take home. In 2025, 1,445 students accessed school pantry services a total of 3,809 times.the clothing givaway program provides clothing to individuals with emergency needs, including interview attire, work clothing for new employment, and other urgent situations. The program promotes dignity by allowing individuals to "shop and select items that meet their preferences. In 2025, 18 houeholds representing 40 individuals were served.the common good coordinates a coutywide back-to-school program in partnership with six area food pabntries to promote preparedness and confidence among students. The program provides grade-specific school supplies, backpacks, and new athletic shoes. The common good serves the eaton community school district, and in 2025, 208 students received support through this initiative.the financial assistance program helps people at risk of losing housing or utilities by providing a one-time payment to prevent eviction or disconnection. Budget ciybsekubg and referrals to other services are also offered to support long-term stability. In 2025, 6 households avoided eviction and 8 households' prevented utility disconnection, and 2 households received laundry assistance. In total 16 households representing 50 individuals were assisted.by offering multiple services in one location, the common good provides a "one-stop shop" for individuals and families in need. The organization works to minimize duplication of services and focuses on addressing gaps where assistance is limited or unavailable elsewhere in the county. Particular attention is given to those who may not qualify for other programs due to strict eligibility requirements, ensuring support is available to those who might otherwise fall through the cracks.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.6%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 96.8%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $105.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.74; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.6% of revenue deployed · 96.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $530K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $57K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.