Eleanor and Henry Jansen Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911680839
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bellingham, WA, USA
Phone
3606713349
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Grantmaking Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$83,352
Expenses
$397,560
Assets
$5,411,578
Liabilities
$6,000

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EVERETT BILLINGSLEA (PRESIDENT)
  • BRAD WILLIAMSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • HEATHER FLAHERTY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • HEATHER FLAHERTY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $177,381 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 eleanor and henry jansen foundation supports the well-being of youth and families in whatcom county by funding programs that strengthen basic needs, encourage volunteerism, and expand opportunities for children and young people to thrive.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the year, the eleanor and henry jansen foundation provided grants to nonprofit organizations serving youth and families in whatcom county. Funding supported basic needs assistance, food security programs, youth development activities, mental health and wellness services, and opportunities that encourage community participation and volunteerism among young people. Grants also helped local organizations strengthen their capacity to deliver services, expand access to care, and support families experiencing financial or social instability. Through this grantmaking, the foundation contributed to improved well-being, stability, and inclusion for children, teens, and families across the county.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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. 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: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.5%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 13th 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: 86.4%; rating input score 86; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -377%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.61; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.4% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.1% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $352K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 18 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.