Giving Choice Inc

What it reported doing in 2015

Giving choice ("gc") was created to encourage and promote online giving by providing donors with an efficient and conveneint means to donate electronically and from which to recommend grants to their favorite charities. Despite similar organizations such as network for good ("nfg") and razoo foundation ("razoo"), as well as the fact that text-for-charity campaigns in the wake of major disasters such as the haiti earthquake and hurricane sandy have been around for at least a decade, gc believes that charitable giving from mobile devices is still in its infancy. Gc will sponor donor-advised funds for its donors that can easily be assessed from a mobile device and that will process donations and make grants more efficiently than does nfg or razoo. Our goal is to use the power of the internet and mobile devices to harness the generous impulses of the public instantly in much the same way as mobile shopping applications harness purchases that may never happen if the impulse leaves or the mobile application interface is difficult to use or understand. Gc wants to be the one application that donors use for all of their charitable giving, while at the same time driving down the administrative fees associated with that giving. When a prospective donor to gc signs up an account, he or she must agree to the daf terms and conditions provided or reasonably amended from time to time by gc. Gc will allow the donor to make recommendations for grants and at least initially, any potential grantee must be to organization described in irc section 170(b)(1)(a) (other than disqualified supporting organization). In subsequent years, once gc is more established, it may begin making charitable grants requiring expenditure responsiblity, but not initially.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 93.1%; rating input score 93
• Program expense ratio: 99.7%; rating input score 100
• Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 6th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: Limited
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: 74.2%; rating input score 74; 43rd 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: 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: 6.7%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 5; 5th 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: Limited
• Revenue growth: Limited
• Asset growth: Limited