Roessler-chadwick Foundation Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471272243
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA, USA
Phone
3103771543
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,999,292
Expenses
$4,715,914
Assets
$77,024,581
Liabilities
$13,015,835

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FREDERICK T HILL (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • FREDERICK T HILL (PRESIDENT): $793,342 total reported compensation
  • JOHN KJENNER (CFO): $366,628 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To further the exempt purposes of roessler-chadwick foundation (the foundation) by operating as a supporting organization to the foundation.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization provides supporting activities that primarily consist of holding, investing and managing assets received from the roessler-chadwick foundation (the foundation) and making expenditures for the benefit of the foundation and its students, including providing a source of funding for the foundation's scholarship program, and engaging in related managerial functions. By separating the management of the real estate and investments previously held by the foundation, the foundation is now able to focus in greater part on the operations and educational mission of each of its schools while the organization is focused on asset management, financial planning, and overarching strategies for the benefit of the foundation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 97
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.8%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.6%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.33; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.8% of revenue deployed · 71.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $793K · 22 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.