Leonard & Annette Shapiro Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954582899
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3237618700
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.
Affiliation
Judaism

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,526
Expenses
$1,271,670
Assets
$4,992,986
Liabilities
$934,010

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNETTE SHAPIRO (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • LEONARD SHAPIRO (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • ILYSE TELLER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOEL SHAPIRO (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARVIN SCHOTLAND (SECRETARY/DIRECTOR): $519,138 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN MATTISINKO (ASSISTANT SECRETARY): $178,106 total reported compensation
  • FAY ALTHAUSEN (TREASURER): $113,625 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 foundation's giving is directed to the jewish community and the community at large to benefit programs and institutions which have an emphasis on health, education, and social services.

What it reported doing in 2015

Charitable giving

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.6%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 60.9%; rating input score 61; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4,065.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.93; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 178.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -197.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $519K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 21 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 49 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.