The Peter Westbrook Foundation

Legal name: Peter Westbrook Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133412917
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
(212) 459-4538
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$732,090
Expenses
$1,043,492
Assets
$16,286,102
Liabilities
$48,864

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PETER WESTBROOK (CEO)
  • ROBERT COTTINGHAM (CEO & CHAIRMAN)

Highest reported compensation

  • PETER WESTBROOK (CEO): $218,679 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Peter Westbrook Foundation (PWF) uses the sport of fencing to develop life skills in young people from underserved communities. Founded in 1991 by legendary sabre fencer and Olympic bronze medalist, the Peter Westbrook Foundation addresses social, physical, academic, and health barriers by leveraging the unique sport of fencing to offer structured physical activity, academic support, and world class coach-mentors to help underrepresented youth excel. Through this sport, which has historically been the realm of the privileged few, PWF. Competitive Athlete Program Founded in 1991 by legendary sabre fencer and Olympic bronze medalist, the Peter Westbrook Foundation addresses social, physical, academic, and health barriers by leveraging the unique sport of fencing to offer structured physical activity, academic support, and world class coach-mentors to help underrepresented youth excel.

What it reported doing in 2024

Academic programs stress educational and academic performance as core priorities for all the organizations program participants. Through the academic enrichment and academic scholarship program, the organization set students on the road to long-term success

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 75.7%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -42.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.61; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 75.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $790K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.