The Foundation Endowment

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521257688
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Warrenton, VA, USA
Phone
7036831077
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$257,757
Expenses
$433,814
Assets
$479,888
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SYLVIA CRUTCHFIELD (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DR JOSEPH HORN (PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH BERRY (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SYLVIA CRUTCHFIELD (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $108,693 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH BERRY (VICE PRESIDENT): $55,403 total reported compensation
  • DR JOSEPH HORN (PRESIDENT): $6,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The foundation conducts seminars on current public policy issues, as well as supports university based research on education issues, produces and disseminates publications, and generates informal personal exchanges in support of the free enterprise system.

What it reported doing in 2016

The foundation provided the sole support for the university-based research at east Tennessee state university (approximately $86,000). Exhibited and distributed materials at annual state school boards association meetings. Monitors and reports on annual meeting of the national association of multicultural education (name).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 68.6%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -68.3%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39.2%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -19.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 68.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $298K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $109K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.