Insurance Industry Charitable Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201240972
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
4242531107
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,075,383
Expenses
$7,325,659
Assets
$5,010,231
Liabilities
$1,046,999

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

37 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM ROSS (CEO)
  • ELIZABETH MYATT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KELLY HARTWEG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • SARAH CONWAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MELISSA DUNCAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM ROSS (CEO): $846,143 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH MYATT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $363,956 total reported compensation
  • ALISA BREESE (VP COMMUNICATIONS): $254,478 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The insurance industry charitable foundation seeks to help communities and enrich lives by combining the collective strengths of the industry to provide grants and volunteer service.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provide and generate support for designated charitable organizations that help to meet critical community needs in the focus areas of: child abuse prevention, education & awareness; disaster preparedness & response; education & literacy programs; and health, safety & human services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% 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 reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 80.7%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.5%; rating input score 96; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.3%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.3%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.7% of revenue deployed · 80.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $846K · 37 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 187 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 180 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.