Achievement Academy of Durham

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
412167219
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Durham, NC, USA
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$265,630
Expenses
$307,832
Assets
$56,801
Liabilities
$16,105

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nancy Cox (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nancy Cox (Executive Director): $34,304 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

AAD teach and support young adults who have dropped out of school in order to reconnect them to the opportunities an education provides. AAD help students gain critical reading skills, earn their NC Equivalency Diploma and complete college preparatory training so they can succeed.

What it reported doing in 2016

Achievement University - In addition to the high-school equivalency programs, we have two contract employees that provide additional services.They are our Employer Engagement Associate and our Postsecondary ResourceSpecialist. These are contract employees who work as part of our Made in Durham collaboration. The Employer Engagement Associate works to help our students develop job readiness skills through internships, seminars, andfield trips. The Postsecondary Resource Specialist runs a College Readiness seminar for all students who have passed two of the four subject-area exams. She also supports our graduates in their post-secondary pursuits.Enrolled post-secondary students (and graduates) have access to academic tutoring, advisement, case management support, and paid work-study employment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.9%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.1%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $271K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $34K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.