Emmas Wish Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812547288
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Frostburg, MD, USA
Phone
2403625555
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,198
Expenses
$15,783
Assets
$918

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TEAL HENSEL (President)
  • JASON HENSEL (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • TEAL HENSEL (President)
  • JASON HENSEL (Vice President)
  • DANIELLE MOCK (Treasurer)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To raise awareness about diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (dipg) and to help and support families who have cancer, including helping families financially who are facing the expense of dealing with cancer. Our goal is to send wish jars to children in the hospital and to do anything to help raise the spirits of children and family members who have received a cancer diagnosis.

What it reported doing in 2017

To send wish jars/financial assistance to kids battling dipg and other forms of cancer in order to help and bring a smile to their faces and help the families with medical bills, travel costs, meal costs, etc.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -40.9%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 131.9% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -142.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $16K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2017
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.