The Workman Fund
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 481083837
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2011–2012
- Forms available
- Form 990 2010, Form 990-EZ 2012
- Location
- Leavenworth, KS, USA
- Phone
- 9136517949
- Rating
- 52
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Rehabilitation Services for Offenders
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $22,600
- Expenses
- $42,054
- Assets
- $7,190
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The fund seeks to improve and develop inmate capabilities and rehabilitation by encouraging the expansion of private sector prison industries. The fund provides venture capital to selected companies which productively employ and educate prison inmates.
What it reported doing in 2012
Heartland project - the fund purchased a china decorating company in 2003. In 2005, the company was moved to a fund owned 16,000 sq ft building in topeka, Kansas. The fund's expenses consisted primarily of real estate taxes, insurance, and mortgage interest on the building in which heartland operates. Despite the hard work of the inmates/employees, economic circumstances dictated the closing of the plant in the fall of 2010. During that time of operation, 32 inmates had the opportunity to acquire skills & confidence, help their families, and save money for release.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 27
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Sustainability: 8
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 32.7%; rating input score 33
- Program expense ratio: 17.6%; rating input score 18
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -86.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: Limited
Growth
- Program expense growth: -191.5% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -135.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 32.7% of revenue deployed · 17.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $7K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2012
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 33/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 18/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.