Mt Sinai Congregation Foundation of North Central Wisconsin

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202290227
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
7156752560
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Reported finances

Revenue
$118,157
Expenses
$29,275
Assets
$566,861
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Supporting organization of Mt. Sinai Congregation

What it reported doing in 2011

Operate exclusively for charitable purposes and to benefit the congregation. The trustee distributes the current & accumulated income to the congregation. Distribution of principal are permitted

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 93
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 75.2%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.36; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 60.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2009 to 2011
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.