Pt Charitable Giving Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472804742
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Beverly Hills, CA, USA
Phone
3107654321
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Corporate Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$107,920
Expenses
$117,103
Assets
$22,403
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NICK SEGAL (PRESIDENT & CEO)

People named in this filing

  • NICK SEGAL (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • F RON SMITH (SECRETARY)
  • RICHARD STEARNS (CFO)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide support to charitable organizations and to individuals in need. The pt charitable giving fund was formed for charitable, scientific, and educational purposes and to provide financial support to charitable organizations. The organization primarily distributes grants to projects that are innovative and effective in addressing problems in our local community of los angeles, California.

What it reported doing in 2017

Provided funding to beauty bus foundation who has dignity through beauty services and compassionate support to chronically or terminally ill patients and their caregivers. Provided funding to cancer support community los angeles who serves people living in west los angeles and the broader los angeles community with a full menu of free-of-charge, essential programs overseen by licensed therapists. Provided funding to ronald mcdonald house charities of southern California whose mission is to provide comfort, care and support to children and families in southern California.provided funding to pasadena educational foundation whose mission is to support, enhance, and supplement the programs, initiatives, and priorities of the pasadena unified school district.provided an opportunity for southern California real estate agents to meet each other and made meaningful connections to raise funds and promote.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% 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. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 61.1%; rating input score 61; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • 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: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.5%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 46.9% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.9% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $114K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.