The Rogel Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
916466563
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Port Ludlow, WA, USA
Phone
3604370549
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Corporate Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$5
Expenses
$26,950
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • STEVEN R ROGEL (OFFICER)
  • CONNIE R ROGEL (OFFICER)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The foundation is organized to exclusively benefit and support the underlying efforts of certain charitable organizations as supported organizations. The foundation is supporting charitable organizations to improve the quality of life in the pacific northwest by providing help within the following areas: social and human services, education, the arts, culture, conservation and health services. The support also provides assistance to the poor and distressed and helps promote social justice.

What it reported doing in 2014

Under the grants program, the organization supported three addtional organizations in order to help them further their goals to help the underprivileged population in the paicific northwest. Organizations supported are as follows: ludlow bay village association: $400kcts: $250tacoma garden club: $300

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 19.3%; rating input score 19; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -538,900%; rating input score 0; 0th 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 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -188.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -38.8% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -106.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $27K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 19/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.