Freedmans Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900995486
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Richmond Center, WI, USA
Phone
2063932406
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$279,083
Expenses
$226,588
Assets
$193,878
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Robert Gordon (Director)
  • Daniel Johnson (Director)
  • Duane Davis (Director)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Freedman's Foundation is to promote public understanding of how individuals, families, and communities thrive and prosper, a development we encourage and celebrate both through our study programs, direct action, and collaborative efforts with others. Freedman's studies economic opportunity and community development, with a special (but not exclusive) focus on economic history, credit and monetary developments, family economic mobility, and the Freedman's Bank itself. The foundation also supports, through grants and operating programs, efforts to promote and encourage individual, family, and community prosperity.

What it reported doing in 2015

Public Awareness: Freedman's seeks to improve public understanding of economic opportunity and community development through original research. In 2015 it launched more than a dozen such research projects for articles, books, and videos with independent scholars. Among these are a study of inter-generational and longitudinal economic mobility; a study of banking and monetary policies and economic mobility; and a study of "wealth creation vs. job location," i.e., the effectiveness (if any) of starting a business or service as opposed to being "given" a "job." This research seeks, on the one hand, to help particular individuals and families create expanded opportunities for themselves, and, also, to benefit them indirectly by helping the public and policy-makers to better understand how opportunities are generated (or, on the other hand, discouraged.)

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 85% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 98.7%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: $143.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 11.6%; rating input score 12; 34th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 18.8%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -24.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -33.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81% of revenue deployed · 98.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $224K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.