Lupus America Communities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900870868
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023491155
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,319,251
Expenses
$2,343,192
Assets
$535,009
Liabilities
$217,283

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LOUISE VETTER (DIRECTOR/CEO OF LFA)

Highest reported compensation

  • LOUISE VETTER (DIRECTOR/CEO OF LFA): $188,505 total reported compensation
  • CYNTHIA WHEELER (DIRECTOR/CFO OF LFA): $7,566 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Lupus america communities (lac) operates exclusively for charitable, educational, scientific, and literary purposes, within the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended (or corresponding provisions of any subsequent federal tax laws); and within such limits, to support the educational and scientific mission of the lupus foundation of america; and, consistent with the above to exercise all powers available to corporations organized pursuant to the district of columbia nonprofit corporation act of 2010.

What it reported doing in 2024

Lac conducts a household goods solicitation program that includes appeals for contributions of household goods as well as a program component that includes a call to action to educate the general public about lupus.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.5%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 47%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -1%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.2%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.2% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.5% of revenue deployed · 47% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $903K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.