Sound Body Sound Mind Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203604882
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3102676885
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Physical Fitness and Community Recreational Facilities

Reported finances

Revenue
$81,427
Expenses
$380,983
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CYNTHIA SIMON (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • MICHAEL T OLIVERI (TREASURER/VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • WILLIAM E SIMON JR (CHAIRMAN/DIRECTOR)
  • CYNTHIA SIMON (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • FRANK E BAXTER (DIRECTOR)

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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote self-confidence and healthy lifestyle choices among los angeles youth.

What it reported doing in 2020

The foundation provides grants of state-of-the-art physical fitness equipment for a new fitness center at participating los angeles area schools. Additional funding is also provided for equipment maintenance, professional development for physical education teachers, and after-school supervision for up to three years. During the 2020 calendar year, the sound body sound mind foundation opened full fitness center programs at 3 new schools, 2 in los angeles unified and 1 in long beach unified, furthering our reach in both districts. In march 2020, all schools transitioned to remote learning due to the onset of the covid-19 pandemic, halting all data collection efforts and programming at our schools. Sbsm began providing schools a weekly remote learning digest aimed at providing physical education resources for home use. Additionally, sbsm distributed over 5,000 home physical education kits across los angeles to further encourage movement at home while supplying much needed equipment. Sbsm's other priority programming focus was the enhancement of past school fitness centers through maintenance and replacement equipment. A dozen schools were supported through this initiative. As the 2020-2021 school year began, sbsm laid the groundwork to expand into the glendale unified school district over the next two academic years with a target of 8 new fitness centers.

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 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 23rd 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: 56.8%; rating input score 57; 47th 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: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -367.9%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -22.2% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -90.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -81.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $326K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2018 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.