The Otis Wilson Charitable Association
Legal name: Otis Wilson Charitable Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 363825363
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
- Location
- Chicago, IL, US
- Phone
- 8477351313
- Rating
- 59
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Private Grantmaking Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,830
- Expenses
- $35,910
- Assets
- $119,850
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- OTIS WILSON (PRESIDENT)
- CHLYLA WILSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- OTIS WILSON (PRESIDENT): $11,179 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Working to increase positive outcomes of our Chicago youth.
What it reported doing in 2024
The tackling literacy program was implemented to create an effective means for imporving the literacy skill of elementary school students who continued to struggle with developing the basic and advanced reading skills needed to excel in school and life. The program also provides a means to expose youth to safe and creative alternatives to spending their time in order to deter them from engaging in violent activities. The fundamental core components of litearcy skill building, which indclude: phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and assesment/evaluation, are all addressed in this program. In order to properly monitor the growth of stundent participants, three separate assessments were given during the course of the program. For the mid-point assesment, there was an average growth of 60% among all participants with respect to being able to read vocabulary work lists from the first game. By the end, all students demonstrated a measure of growth in their overall reading ability.
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
MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 34
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 51.5%; rating input score 52
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 37.8%; rating input score 38; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: -1,862.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.34; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 31.1%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -17.4% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -16.3% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 51.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $18K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $11K · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.