William S Hart Education Foundation Wish Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454705593
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Santa Clarita, CA, USA
Phone
6617999474
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$108,111
Expenses
$182,068
Assets
$267,787
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AMY DANIELS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMY DANIELS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $68,052 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To support student programs for the over 22,000 students of the wm. S hart union high school district. The funding focus is steam (science, technology, engineering, the arts, math) with a particular focus on student wellness programs. Support also (continued on schedule o) (continued from page 2) includes regional occupational and special education programs and includes assistance for all demographics, including socioeconomically disadvantaged students, student athletes and english language learners.

What it reported doing in 2024

Funding for special education is constantly requiring support from wish; they pride themselves on protecting every students' right to have the tools needed to succeed in the classroom, which includes our special needs classrooms. Wish works very closely with the district special education directors and teachers to provide items for all levels of special ed needs, from students needing light supervision to those needing one on one supervision. It's important for students to have spaces that can be utilized when they feel dysregulated, all in an effort to see less classroom avoidance and classroom elopements. With help from wish and working with special education teachers and social workers, the classrooms are designed to best meet the needs of these amazing students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.6%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 56.6%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: -68.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.47; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.6% of revenue deployed · 56.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $103K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.