The Indianapolis Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
350868115
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3176342423
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,255,565
Expenses
$5,943,778
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN E PAYNE (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN E PAYNE (PRESIDENT & CEO): $379,094 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT A MACPHERSON (VP DEVELOPMENT): $184,589 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH TATE (VP GRANTMAKING): $168,364 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the indianapolis foundation (tif) is to inspire, support, and practice philanthropy, leadership, and service in our community. Through the generosity of thousands of donors, tif is the steward for charitable assets focusing on three areas that make Indiana a better place to live for current and future generations: 1.) grantmaking from a variety of funds to other effective not-for-profits 2.) community leadership on issues like helping families overcome obstacles, creating great public spaces, and embracing our ethnic communities 3.) philanthropic advising to help people make their charitable giving more thoughtful and enjoyable. We accomplish the above through our three initiatives: inspiring places, family success and education.

What it reported doing in 2013

Inspiring places that attract and retain talent. We improve the quality of life in the urban core focusing on 3 elements of an area: vibrancy - building a dynamic economy for job retention and expansion, increased property values and diversified tax base; safety - decreasing blight and poverty in neighborhoods to decrease crime; and attractiveness - creating viable local places that are accessible, walkable, fun and diverse to attract and retain highly educated residents. We strengthen key neighborhood support organizations. We champion and educate on the ceo's for cities concepts, frameworks and research to advance the vision of our community as an inspiring place.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • 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: 75.6%; rating input score 76; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th 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: 5%; rating input score 58; 58th 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: 4.6%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -41% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $379K · 11 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 116 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 116 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.