The Norman & Louise Jones Foundation of Toledo Lucas County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264776744
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Toledo, OH, USA
Phone
4197240888
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$946,014
Expenses
$98,827
Assets
$1,390,741
Liabilities
$1,218,315

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SANDRA QUARLES (SECRETARY): $18,728 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the norman and louise jones foundation, of toledo, Ohio, is to provide educational activities set in an interactive and professionally based environment with a safe and secure facility for the entire community while focusing on bringing together stabilizing, and supporting the family members on improving their values and appreciation for education. The foundation strives to conduct a wide range of quality initiatives focused on the complete individual by implementing programs and workshops involving self-discovery and personal development through the career pathways center and educational summer camp. The sole purpose of the foundation is to improve the quality of life for youth and their families in need or our services in the community in which we serve.

What it reported doing in 2015

Educational summer camp is designed to provide a stimulating summer experience for ages 5 - 14 in a safe environment. These summer sessions create an awareness of the importance of continuing education throughout the summer and prevent "summer slide" of not retaining academics taught in the previous school year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 8.5%; rating input score 8
  • Program expense ratio: 81.2%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $221.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 89.6%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.07; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -99.5% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 49.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 8.5% of revenue deployed · 81.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $80K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $19K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.