Whizin Support Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954571058
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3237618700
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations
Affiliation
Judaism

Reported finances

Revenue
$231,793
Expenses
$223,430
Assets
$4,302,623
Liabilities
$12,410

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRUCE WHIZIN (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • LOUIS MILLER (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SARAH SCHULTZ (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
  • David Carroll (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARVIN SCHOTLAND (SECRETARY/DIRECTOR): $534,094 total reported compensation
  • David Carroll (Vice President): $220,523 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN MATTISINKO (ASSISTANT SECRETARY): $190,153 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The foundation's giving is directed to the jewish community and the community at large to benefit programs and institutions which have an emphasis on health, children and social services.

What it reported doing in 2016

Charitable giving

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 44
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 77.9%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 30.5%; rating input score 31; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 3.6%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.26; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 66.1% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 35.1% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $174K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $534K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 22 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 47 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.