The Ward Oaks Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522252149
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chestertown, MD, USA
Phone
4103363779
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$364,692
Expenses
$546,458
Assets
$4,052,560
Liabilities
$2,914

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL FALCONE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • DARYL JONES (CHAIRMAN)
  • MICHAEL FALCONE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JAMES MITCHELL (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

To also help the environment by promoting the use of renewable energy sources, to invest in research and development of renewable energy sources, to encourage and promote the cost effective financing and operating of renewable energy facilities in order to reduce the cost of building and operating such facilities and to reduce the cost of the energy produced by such facilities. To acquire, develop, invest in, own and operate renewable energy sources in order to demonstrate their efficiency, promote their use, and reduce reliance upon foreign energy sources. To participate in programs designed to accomplish any of the foregoing, as well as other charitable purposes, to include affordable housing for the homeless, elderly, and persons of low income.

What it reported doing in 2024

Providing clean and renewable energy sources to communities through ownership in various partnerships that align with this mission.contributing to organizations whose exempt purpose aligns with that of the foundation's missions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
  • 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: 82.8%; rating input score 83; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -49.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.42; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $481K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.