Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461760040
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023331327
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,246,093
Expenses
$1,242,415
Assets
$581,041
Liabilities
$53,684

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mark Budd (President, Treasurer, Interim E.D.)
  • Phyllis Kramer (Vice President)
  • Denise Snyder (Executive Director (to 4/2025))
  • Harold Bordy (Executive Director (from 9/2025))

Highest reported compensation

  • Denise Snyder (Executive Director (to 4/2025)): $95,851 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To assist residents of the Foggy Bottom/West End neighborhood who desire to remain independent in their homes as they age by facilitating and coordinating a range of supportive services and by sponsoring programs to promote their health and quality of life.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Organization is the grant administrator for a District of Columbia Department of Aging and Community Living (DACL) grant that funds villages in DC. The Organization receives funding from DACL and then passes the funds to villages in DC to support their operations. The 990 includes $1,050,295 of contribution revenue and $946,769 of expense from this grant. $794,795 is reported as grant expense to other villages. The Organization reports these amounts in its financial statements, but the revenues and expenses of administering this grant is not a core program of the Organization.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 84% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 67% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.2%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 95.4%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8,165.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.7%; rating input score 94; 41st 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.2% of revenue deployed · 95.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $96K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.