Watts House Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270379225
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2012, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
9172703140
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Home Improvement and Repairs

Reported finances

Revenue
$68
Expenses
$66,041
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHANNING HENRY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • STEVE GLENN (BOARD MEMBER)
  • CHANNING HENRY (PRESIDENT)
  • STEPHEN SLAUGHTER (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The watts house project (whp) is a collaborative artwork in the shape of a neighborhood redevelopment, centered on east 107th street across from the historic watts towers in los angeles. Whp is committed to working with residents of 107th street, and eventually beyond, to preserve the character of the neighborhood, bring the revitalizing effects of art and arts education to the neighborhood, and help the community improve their public and private spaces. Whp engages in arts-based programming as well as home improvements.

What it reported doing in 2016

House renovations - the love house renovations which were completed in an earlier year had unpaid repairs and design costs that were paid off in this fiscal year.

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 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 63.6%; rating input score 64

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -97,019.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18.8% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -87.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -44.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 63.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $42K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • 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 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.