Wounded Warriors Support Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462415750
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Carmel by the Sea, CA, USA
Phone
8312367575
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$648,891
Expenses
$570,878
Assets
$392,847
Liabilities
$312,462

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Matthew G Gregory (Director)
  • Matthew J Gregory (Director)
  • Danella J Gregory (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. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To help and assist as many physically and mentally wounded warriors as possible.

What it reported doing in 2016

During 2016, the organization provided services to veterans, therapeutic trail rides, and was present at public events giving advice and direction to veterans and their families. Volunteers guided veterans to Heads Up Nevada for treatment of P.T.S.D. Due to the drop off in fundraising due to negative publicity for wounded warrior organizations, WWSG was forced to put on hold a grant to Heads Up Nevada to fund P.T.S.D. treatment. Volunteers for the organization attended approximately 92 events in 2016 connecting veterans with needed services. The organization continues to pursue opening a Healing center with Heads Up Nevada somewhere in Carmel Valley, CA (Carmel Healing Center) in the near future. This center will encompass a clinic for clinicians to help veterans mentally. Also on the property will be an equine facility to support the therapeutic riding activities with PATH certified instructors. Our goal in 2017 is to make our healing center happen in Carmel Valley to help as many veterans as possible. The organization provided many needed items to homeless veterans living on the streets this year. Items provided include blankets, underwear, socks, jeans, bottled water, flashlights, dehydrated survival food, cell phone service, meditation services, and more. Volunteers for the organization will continue to provide items to veterans that we meet at events and on the street.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 86% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 20
  • Transparency & Controls: 95
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 21.1%; rating input score 21
  • Program expense ratio: 24%; rating input score 24
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 21.1% of revenue deployed · 24% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $137K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 21/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.