The National W Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391016398
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082627717
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Sports Associations &Training Facilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$90,767
Expenses
$984,376
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK FINLEY (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • MARK LAPORTE (PRESIDENT)
  • MARK RICHMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL CERNIGLIA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL CERNIGLIA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $91,764 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the national "w" club is to nurture the legacy, tradition and values that come from participation in intercollegiate athletics, and to deliver services that enhance letterwinners lives through connections to each other, badger athletics, the university of Wisconsin and badger nation.

What it reported doing in 2015

The w club was established in 1949 and set the benchmark on lettermen associations. What started as a small alumni group has become an organization with a diverse membership base of over 11,407 letterwinners representing athletes from thirty-six different sports dating back to 1895. The w club is comprised of individuals who have earned the university's varsity athletic insignia "w" for their athletic or team involvement or who have been named as honorary members for their support services.with a great sense of legacy and pride, the w club focuses on providing opportunities for members to stay connected to former teammates, the school and the heritage of being a former badger athlete. It is just not what or why we do things but in what spirit we approach our mission. There are three core principles of service that member's value in the w club.building relationships (people): we celebrate our athletes working as a team and as individuals. We are part of a greater community and are better for this. We support and nurture one and another in life just as we did as teammates. We are thankful and celebrate our time together. We want to see the next generation be successful and learn from those that have come before.building a legacy for life (pride): we take pride in the heritage and traditions of our athletes and university. We recognize the great sacrifices and time invested by many for our athletes to be varsity letterwinners. We value being part of a great institution uw-madison.building character (purpose): we participate in athletics not just for the sport but for the values it instills in us, the challenges we overcome, the opportunity to be something better than when we started. As w club letterwinners we understand our legacy continues as much by what we do when we leave the playing field as when we were on it.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 62% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 70% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 12
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.8%; rating input score 99; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -984.5%; rating input score 5; 5th 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: 9.3%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -83.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -30.6% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -20.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.6% of revenue deployed · 12.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $120K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 25 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.