William Rainey Harper College Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237348228
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Palatine, IL, USA
Phone
8479256490
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,301,981
Expenses
$3,368,609
Assets
$55,028,953
Liabilities
$149,668

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

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRENDA KNOX (PRESIDENT)
  • RICHARD P HOHOL (PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • HEATHER ZOLDAK ((EX-OFFICIO) CHIEF ADV. OFFICER): $187,958 total reported compensation
  • KRISTYN WOOD (ASSO EXEC DIR. FDN MAJ GIFTS): $124,536 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The harper college educational foundation was established in 1973 as a non-profit (501 (c)(3)) organization to provide funding and resources for the college not available through normal government and tax sources.vision the harper college educational foundation strives to provide all harper college students with opportunities to transform their lives and enrich the community through education without financial barriers. Mission connecting college and community through philanthrophy to support transformative education and career opportunities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community impact fund grants (cifg): the foundation awards approximately $50,000 annually through its community impact fund grant (cifg) program, supporting external nonprofit organizations whose missions align with harper college's commitment to economic mobility, equity, and diversity. The cifg program was established using funds from a transformational grant awarded by mackenzie scott and is designed to extend harper college's impact beyond campus by investing in community-based partners. Through this program, the foundation strengthens the regional ecosystem supporting students, families, and communities, while advancing shared goals related to access, opportunity, and inclusive economic advancement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.7%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 92%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 43rd 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.34; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.7% of revenue deployed · 92% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $188K · 33 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.