The Glennon Family Charitable Trust C/o the Dayton Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
316615264
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Dayton, OH, USA
Phone
9372220410
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Grantmaking Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$256,496
Expenses
$209,640
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL M PARKS (TRUSTEE AND CHAIR): $392,083 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To perform the functions of and/or carry out the purposes of the dayton foundation, an Ohio publicly supported community foundation, by reason of being operated in connection with the dayton foundation within the meaning of section 509(a)(3) of the internal revenue code and treasury regulation sections 1.509(a)-4(i)(2)(ii)(a) and (d) and 1.509(a)-4(i)(3)(ii).

What it reported doing in 2013

The dayton foundation has identified a number of community initiatives that it has asked the trustees to support by making direct grants to charitable organizations undertaking responsibility for these initiatives. These initiatives include: dayton area k-12 parochial and charter school educational initiatives; neighborhood development in distressed urban areas; special projects at the university of dayton; and community services that support needy individuals and persons with disabilities. All these initiatives are activities that the dayton foundation desires to support and is now able to do so more effectively with the financial assistance from the trust.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 91.2%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 18th 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: NotApplicable
    • 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: 18.3%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.8%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -33.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.6% of revenue deployed · 91.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $191K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $392K · 4 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 22 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.