Innovation Foundation of Western Wisconsin Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273543342
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Eau Claire, WI, USA
Phone
7158947209
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Employment N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$186,053
Expenses
$326,903
Assets
$84,486
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GLEN POTTS (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • MAUREEN CARLSON (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • KARA LINDERHOLM (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL FINGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL FINGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $87,510 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The innovation foundation of western Wisconsin works with entrepreneurs, innovators and businesses at critical points in the product and business development life-cycles to help grow their businesses.

What it reported doing in 2015

Ifww works with entrepreneurs, innovators and businesses at critical points in the product and business development life-cycles to help grow their businesses. Ifww works with clients to identify gaps in resources that may cause roadblocks to bringing their ideas to market. Once a client's needs are identified, ifww provides resources to help clients reach their highest potential. By supporting emerging business opportunities, ifww works to create new, globally competitive companies and corporate headquarters in western Wisconsin.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • 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: Limited
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -75.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.8% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -22.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $269K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.