The Parks Foundation of Hendricks County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263956104
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Danville, IN, USA
Phone
3178002396
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$194,428
Expenses
$227,369
Assets
$151,844
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ADAM SCOTT (PRESIDENT)
  • ANGIE HAYWOOD (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CATHERINE CUMMINGS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CATHERINE CUMMINGS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $49,785 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Beautiful parks, trails and outdoor spaces make our communities more vibrant places to live, work and play and hendricks county has some of the best amenities our great state has to offer! Our mission at the parks foundation of hendricks county is to ensure the livelihood and longevity of our community's incredible parks. We do this by raising funds to enhance the cultural, recreational and natural resources of hendricks county public parks.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025 pfohc hosted a luncheon called picnic for the parks. This event was held at the hendricks county fairgrounds in march 2025. Over 400 people attended. Attendees learned about all the park departments in hendricks county and what programs, events and amentities they each offer the community. Attendees also ate lunch while listening to a program that included various speakers, videos and an awards presentation. Goals1. This event will serve as a fundraising opportunity for pfohc. Funds raised will assist with the operating costs of the organization and support the gary emsweller parks & trails fund. 2. The event will build awareness for the mission of pfohc and educate the community on the work of the organization. Guests at the event will gain a stronger sense of the role pfohc plays in the growth and longevity of our public parks and trails. 3. Attendees will leave the event having a much stronger understanding of the number of public parks and trails in our county, the amenities they offer, and the impact they have on a thriving community and economy. 4. An individual from the community who has made significant contributions to parks and trails will be recognized with an award at the event.5. Have fun! Target audiences1. Community leadersa. County commissioners, county council, town councils, town managers, elected officials, park board members2. Pfohc donors3. Potential donors4. Past and current board members5. Chamber members6. Business leaders7. Nonprofit leaders8. County residents

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 59.4%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 50th 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: 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: 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: -16.9%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.9%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70% of revenue deployed · 59.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $135K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.