Edward Waters College Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900750130
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Jacksonville, FL, USA
Phone
9044708000
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$0
Expenses
$50,000
Assets
$22,910
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Jack Allen (Board Member)
  • Martha Barrett (Board Member)
  • Tony Boselli (Board Member)

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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Foundation assists Edward Waters College in generating private financial support through endowments, gifts, grants, and contributions that will foster the Colleges efforts to provide excellence in education. The Foundation is a steward of the endowments, gifts, grants, and contributions.

What it reported doing in 2018

Generate private financial support through endowments, gifts, grants and contributions for the benefit of the College.

Operating model

Revenue model
No positive adjusted resources. The filing reports no positive adjusted operating resources.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -104.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 10 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2017 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.