War Against Racism

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821877902
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Mercer Island, WA, USA
Phone
2023209797
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Minority Rights

Reported finances

Revenue
$286,033
Expenses
$302,702
Assets
$1,736
Liabilities
$10,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARL SILVERBERG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CARL SILVERBERG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $97,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To combat anti-semitism through the use of digital marketing and partnering with existing organizations.

What it reported doing in 2018

W.a.r. Conducted three major digital marketing campaigns in addition to outreach with the major jewish organizations in the united states as well as other organizations fighting discrimination. The first digital marketing campaign was conducted on eleven university campuses in the northeast and midwest and the purpose was to determine messaging that would persuade 18-25 year olds to think of jews as a minority. Almost 2,500 students signed an online petition in agreement that jews should be treated the same as any other minority. The second major digital marketing campaign was conducted nationally to determine whether aggressive messaging would be as persuasive in reaching the 25-45 year-old demographic. It was also an 8 week campaign and the results reinforced the original thesis that soft messaging was the most effective form of persuasion. The third major digital marketing campaign was conducted nationally and targeted 11 major urban areas. This effort proved conclusively that messaging about jews being a minority was effective in addition to providing information that would form the basis of local outreach between urban jewish organizations and other urban minority organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.5%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -5.8%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 5.76; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 107.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -131.5% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.5% of revenue deployed · 89.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 2 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $270K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $98K · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

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: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.