White Horse Village Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232738045
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Newtown Square, PA, USA
Phone
6105585000
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,007,591
Expenses
$509,652
Assets
$6,986,698
Liabilities
$571,868

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FRED BILLUPS (PRESIDENT/CHAIR)
  • ROBERT J BRUCE - UNTIL 042024 (PAST PRESIDENT/CHAIR)
  • MICHAEL JOSEPH SHAW (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • SUSAN ABTOUCHE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LEONARD WEISER (FORMER PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL JOSEPH SHAW (PRESIDENT/CEO): $308,670 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN ABTOUCHE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $224,777 total reported compensation
  • TACI DAMSTEDT (SENIOR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $221,619 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

White horse village foundation, inc. Has been formed for the purpose of accepting and utilizing donations for the benefit of the residents of the white horse village community.

What it reported doing in 2024

The basic purpose of the foundation is to serve as an umbrella for receiving and administering all gifts donated to white horse village.the gifts are to be used for the four principal purposes described below:- to provide financial assistance to residents in need- to provide funding for physical improvements to white horse village which directly benefit the residents- to provide other programs or funding for the health, education and welfare of residents.- to provide assistance for team members to further their education and to thank dedicated team members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 96% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.2%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 49.4%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.71; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 44.2%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $510K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $309K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.