Cactus Jack Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
853607550
IRS 990-PF coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990-PF 2024
Location
Beverly Hills, CA, USA
Phone
4246759643
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Private Independent Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,578,497
Expenses
$2,285,350

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

Overview

Mission

Private Independent Foundations

What it reported funding in 2024

The foundation reported 5 grants totaling $465,000. The stated grant purposes included to help in the mission to maximize the effectiveness of contributions to support future excellence in education, research, service, and athletics at prairie view a&m university., to help in the mission of supporting the careers of the country's most promising fashion students from all backgrounds., and to provide clothing, toys, diapers, and essential supplies to the church in haiti., plus 2 other reported purposes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the foundation's positive operating resources came from contributions.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The foundation combined direct charitable work with grants to other organizations or people.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes to charitable grants and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of spending goes to grants and assets provide a limited cushion relative to annual grants.

Rating breakdown

  • Grant Deployment: 100
  • Cost Efficiency: 20
  • Transparency: 100
  • Compliance: 100
  • Endowment Health: 2

Detailed rating inputs

Grant Deployment

  • Grant deployment ratio: 100%; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Cost Efficiency

  • Grant expense ratio: 20.3%; rating input score 20; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency

  • Grant recipient disclosure: Yes; rating input score 100

Compliance

  • Part VII-B activity disclosures: 19 of 19 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Property sale or exchange with a disqualified person: Pass
    • Borrowing from or lending to a disqualified person: Pass
    • Goods, services, or facilities involving a disqualified person: Pass
    • Compensation paid to a disqualified person: Pass
    • Assets transferred to a disqualified person: Pass
    • Payment to a government official: Pass
    • Uncorrected prior self-dealing: Pass
    • Prior-year undistributed income: Pass
    • Excess business holdings: Pass
    • Investments that may jeopardize charitable purposes: Pass
    • Uncorrected prior-year jeopardizing investments: Pass
    • Attempt to influence legislation: Pass
    • Attempt to influence an election: Pass
    • Grants to individuals: Pass
    • Grants to organizations: Pass
    • Spending for a noncharitable purpose: Pass
    • Funds received for a personal-benefit contract: Pass
    • Premiums paid on a personal-benefit contract: Pass
    • Prohibited tax-shelter transaction: Pass
  • Filing consistency checks: 9; rating input score 100

Endowment Health

  • Endowment-health comparison: 1.22; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Grants: 100% of grant recipient detail disclosed
  • Payout: At least 100% grant deployment rate
  • Trustees: Filed trustees detail
  • Self-dealing: 100% of reviewed questions answered “No”
  • Investments: 2th percentile for endowment coverage
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 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 — Cost Efficiency: Grant expense ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Endowment Health: Endowment-health comparison scored 2/100.