Woodlawn Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133055729
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
New Rochelle, NY, USA
Phone
9146323778
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Roman Catholic
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,902,597
Expenses
$17,721,995
Assets
$59,014,309
Liabilities
$10,070,339

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANTHONY M MCCARTHY (PRESIDENT)
  • CHARLES CUSHNIE (EXEC. DIRECTOR AND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL A COAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TIMOTHY S BARRY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JUAN L MARTI (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GREGORY A BYRNES (SECRETARY): $67,270 total reported compensation
  • ARTHUR KIM C RIVERA (TREASURER): $48,803 total reported compensation
  • CHARLES CUSHNIE (EXEC. DIRECTOR AND VICE PRESIDENT): $22,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Woodlawn foundation solicits contributions and provides grants to nonprofit organizations that receive pastoral care from the catholic prelature of opus dei.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided grants and services in support of sixty-one (61) nonprofit organizations that receive pastoral care from the roman catholic prelature of opus dei.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 67
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91.2%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,046.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 42.9%; rating input score 43; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.9%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.33; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.9%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $16.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $67K · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $458K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 47 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 43 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 43/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.