Positive Impact Fund For Tiger Charities Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
881306120
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Phone
8645900075
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,202,998
Expenses
$3,017,344
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rich Davies (President)
  • Kevin Gemas (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • James R Couch Jr (Employee): $322,917 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of the foundation is to promote volunteerism and community engagement and strengthen local community charitable organizations and initiatives. Specifically, the organization will provide educational opportunities and training for college-level student athletes to learn about community and civic engagement and leverage their name, image, and likeness ("nil") to participate in and promote local charitable causes and bring much-needed public awareness and attention to underserved local community organizations and initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2023

The Organization awarded contracts to college-level student athletes in the amount of $1,950,542 for the year ended December 31, 2023. The contract terms are one year and payments are made to the student athletes monthly. The contracts contain certain deliverables that the student athletes must complete and include a termination clause if these deliverables are not met. Expenses are recognized monthly as the payments are made. As of December 31, 2023, the Organization had no outstanding contracts due to the plan to dissolve the Organization.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th 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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -150.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 44.8% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -106.7% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $323K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2022 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.