W1shfu1 Th1nk1ng Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 462129364
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2016
- Forms available
- Form 990 2016, Form 990-N 2013
- Location
- Amsterdam, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5185270321
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $56,257
- Expenses
- $59,513
- Assets
- $17,938
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MATT MOLLER (Executive Director of Finance and Programs)
- JOHN SUMPTER (Executive Director of Volunteers Fundraising)
- CASEY MARTIN (Executive Director of Marketing)
- TJ CZESKI (Executive Director of Operations)
- CALVIN MARTIN (Executive Director of Communications Fitness)
People named in this filing
- MATT MOLLER (Executive Director of Finance and Programs)
- JOHN SUMPTER (Executive Director of Volunteers Fundraising)
- CASEY MARTIN (Executive Director of Marketing)
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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Locally, WTF is a vocal advocate for stopping the violence and taking underprivileged youth off of the the streets and into a positive environment.
What it reported doing in 2016
General fundraising and operation expenses Community Serviceinfluence and effect the lives of our youth in a positive manner that will help them grow into responsible mature adults with high aspirations in life and respect for themselves and others. With the support of a prideful city and contributions from the commuity members. Homework CLUB tutoring To encourage the importance of education to provide an educational outlet for students of the community. WT set out to develop a study hall like atmosphere on weeknights, with Tutors available, a computer lab they can utilize proper resources to efficiently study or complete their homework.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 77% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 98.4%; rating input score 98
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5.8%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -16.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $59K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 14 of 16 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2015 to 2016
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.