Accel Ai Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822813494
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Laguna Beach, CA, USA
Phone
4154949743
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$304,146
Expenses
$515,696
Assets
$384,683
Liabilities
$54,457

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

Leadership & pay

67 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURA MONTOYA (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • LAURA MONTOYA (CEO)
  • TIM MCMACKEN JR (SECRETARY)
  • JOYCE KATZMAN GONZALEZ (CFO)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Accel nbsp; ai nbsp; institute apos; s nbsp; mission nbsp; to nbsp; provide nbsp; education nbsp; in nbsp; ai nbsp; theory nbsp; and nbsp; engineering nbsp; integrating nbsp; ai nbsp; and nbsp; social nbsp; impact nbsp; in nbsp; research nbsp; consulting nbsp; and nbsp; workshops nbsp; on nbsp; ethical nbsp; ai nbsp; development nbsp; and nbsp; applied nbsp; engineering

What it reported doing in 2024

Accel ai institutes mission is to provide education in ai theory and engineering. Integrating ai and social impact in research consulting and workshops on ethical ai development and applied engineering.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.

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: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 36
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $70.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • 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: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 42nd 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; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -69.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 40.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 67 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 27 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D other liabilities reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.