Waite Hill Village Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472635076
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Waite Hill, OH, USA
Phone
4402569210
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$106,064
Expenses
$55,959
Assets
$1,432,431
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • WENDELL HITTSLEY (DIRECTOR)
  • KERRI BOWDEN (DIRECTOR)
  • RALPH R LUSTRI (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the foundation is to pursue contributions from residents of waite hill and even from interested non-residents, who will voluntarily contribute on a tax deductible basis to the village for it to fund its operations. However, the donors will not give the village unfettered immediate control over the funds. Rather, the foundation will allocate funds as need for various village projects. The investment income may be used for day-to-day village operations, but any funds withdrawn from the principal will be used for long-term capital improvements to the village. Also, to the extent that the village would qualify for Ohio or federal aid, the foundation would not be considered an available resource for the village so that it may qualify for certain financial assistance. In addition, there are certain restrictions on municipalities and villages in the state of Ohio with respect to the investment of their funds. This fund would not be an investment by the municipality, and would t

What it reported doing in 2025

To help fund village deficits and capital projects of waite hill village

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.7%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 97.2%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 47.2%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.6; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.7% of revenue deployed · 97.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $54K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.