The Ohio Foundation of Independent Colleges

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
314441082
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Westerville, OH, USA
Phone
6144691950
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,447,305
Expenses
$4,980,183
Assets
$8,805,895
Liabilities
$627,823

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

76 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BILL SPIKER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BILL SPIKER (PRESIDENT): $285,302 total reported compensation
  • BRETT FIELDS (VP OF OPERATIONS): $136,336 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To solicit contributions from the corporate community and private foundations on behalf of 33 member-college/universities that serve nearly 80,000 students. Members are nonprofit, privately controlled, 4-year colleges/universities chartered by the state of Ohio, are fully accredited by higher learning commission, and have a curricular program in traditional liberal arts. Contributions to ofic are distributed to colleges/universities annually and provide tuition assistance and operational support. Ofic provides its donors with an efficient means to support independent higher education. Ofic also provides programs to promote corporate/independent higher education partnerships and provides leadership in developing efforts that result in reduced costs and improved business practices for its members.

What it reported doing in 2024

Establish a strong volunteer network of business/industry and college/university professionals to conduct an annual solicitation program that provides unrestricted distributions to Ohio independent colleges and universities. Unrestricted contributions to ofic are distributed in entirety to the 33 ofic-member colleges and universities in accordance with a distribution formula that requires 60% of the total to be divided equally and 40% of the total to be based upon each member's full-time and full-time equivalent undergraduate enrollments. This is an important source of financial support for our members, allowing them to apply it to areas of greatest need and enabling them to rely on sources other than just tuition to support costs associated with providing an accessible, quality education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.2%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • 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: 86.8%; rating input score 87; 24th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.6%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.77; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.2% of revenue deployed · 78.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 74 of 74 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $285K · 76 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 92 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 89 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 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.