Adrienne Jules Fooundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454981078
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2137389246
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$725,439
Expenses
$444,781
Assets
$278,728
Liabilities
$384

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Highest reported compensation

  • GWENDOLYN W YOUNG (Executive Dir.): $65,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See statement attached

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 13
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 44
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 12.2%; rating input score 12
  • Program expense ratio: 19.9%; rating input score 20
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st 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: 75%; rating input score 75; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38.7%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -16.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 76.8% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 12.2% of revenue deployed · 19.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 0 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $356K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2013
  • 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.

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 12/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.