Mcmanis-wigh China Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454503474
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2015
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4082798700
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Academic Exchange

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,399
Expenses
$151,933
Assets
$102,158
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES MCMANIS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JAMES MCMANIS (PRESIDENT)
  • SARA WIGH (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To provide education to trial lawyers and to carry on other education activities associated with this goal.

What it reported doing in 2025

To provide education to trial lawyers and to carry on other education activities associated with this goal as allowed by law.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.9%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 1.3%; rating input score 1

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4,369.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 36.4% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -25.7% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.9% of revenue deployed · 1.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.