Systemic Jia Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822564392
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mountain View, CA, USA
Phone
5107039595
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Pediatrics Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$159,459
Expenses
$142,526
Assets
$106,554
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JONATHAN BOUTELLE (DIRECTOR)
  • RASHMI SINHA (DIRECTOR)
  • MATTHEW MIGHT (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

1. To support research relating to treatments and cure of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sjia); 2. Promote increased awareness, knowledge and understanding of sjia by medical professionals, the general public and families affected by sjia; 3. Promote mutual support through building and maintaining an extensive web-based or other network of information and resources for the general public and families.

What it reported doing in 2024

Systemic jia foundation plans several types of fundraising: 1) donations from families with sjia: the systemic jia foundation will reach out to families with sjia to both contribute and raise funds for the benefit of the systemic jia foundation. The systemic jia foundation will raise funds online, using fundraising sites such as crowdrise, stripe, facebook or fundraising functionality on our own website.2) event sponsorships from pharma companies: for any events the systemic jia foundation organize, the systemic jia foundation will reach out to pharma companies who are interested in sjia to give sponsorships at different levels to support the event.3) general: the systemic jia foundation will undertake additional fundraising from a variety of sources including mail, email, personal and phone solicitations. The organization will create proposals and other materials that will be necessary to submit in order for the organization to receive grants and donations.4) grants from other charitable organizations. The systemic jia foundation will raise additional funds from other charitable foundations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 31
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.9%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 77%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.6%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.2% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.9% of revenue deployed · 77% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $110K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.