Wll Enterprises Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 454221972
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2015–2017
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2017
- Location
- Compton, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3104936135
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Youth Development Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $120,000
- Expenses
- $99,733
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
People named in this filing
- LESLIE WILKES (DIRECTOR)
- KYMM BUCKNER (DIRECTOR)
- MORIAH WILKES (DIRECTOR)
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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Wll enterprises inc. Is firmly committed in ensuring that families have access to resources required in order to improve their health. We are focused on reducing health and mental health risk factors through education[: comma:] nutrition and exercise which inevitably fosters healthy living. Our goal is to ameliorate the situation by eliminating caustic factors and potential risk factors[: comma:] thereby helping the families in establishing a healthy lifestyle. We want to bring change and make a positive impact on all the lives that we touch in our community. We recognize our fight against childhood obesity is not just our own[: comma:] but curbing childhood obesity is a fight for us all.
What it reported doing in 2017
Happy healthy mind and body programs in an afterschool program encouraging active living and healthy eating in underprivileged areas
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 50%; rating input score 50
- Program expense ratio: 60.2%; rating input score 60
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 16.9%; rating input score 74; 74th 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 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 38% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 50% of revenue deployed · 60.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $60K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 5 of 6 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2017
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.