Advancing Students Forward

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460467961
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
8585760132
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$237,970
Expenses
$399,244
Assets
$2,736,571
Liabilities
$6,829

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MONICA K SANTOS (Executive Dir.): $80,855 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Advancing students forward (asf) provides access to secondary and post-secondary education for low-income students in colonia tecolote, tijuana, mexico, by addressing financial and structural barriers that often prevent students from continuing their education beyond elementary school.asf serves approximately 70 students annually from middle school through university or technical completion. Students are selected based on demonstrated financial need, academic potential, and residency within the surrounding community. Each year, approximately ten new students entering seventh grade are admitted into the program.asf operates a long-term, cohort-based student success model that combines partial financial scholarships with structured academic support, leadership development, enrichment activities, community service, and social-emotional learning. Students are required to participate in monthly meetings, maintain academic standards, and remain engaged in program activities.most students rem

What it reported doing in 2024

Student success and support programadvancing students forward (asf) provides a structured, multi-year student success program serving approximately 70 students annually in colonia tecolote, tijuana, mexico. The program combines financial assistance with academic, leadership, and social-emotional support to help students complete their secondary and post-secondary education.students participate in required monthly meetings that include academic check-ins, team-building activities, leadership development, and educational workshops. University-level participants serve as peer leaders and assist in facilitating meetings and presentations.asf provides partial financial support for school-related expenses, educational supplies, and access to technology. The organization operates a student center that offers a supervised space for studying, internet access, homework support, and peer collaboration.the program includes social-emotional learning and individualized guidance delivered by a team that includes counselors, educators, administrative staff, and trained volunteers. Support is tailored to student needs to promote academic persistence and personal development.asf conducts parent-student workshops twice annually to strengthen family engagement and reinforce academic expectations. Students are required to maintain academic standards and remain actively engaged in program activities.asf also facilitates enrichment opportunities and experiential learning initiatives, including collaborative projects with community and university partners. One such initiative, asf upcycle, engages students in hands-on learning related to environmental sustainability, engineering concepts, and entrepreneurship through a community-based waste upcycling project.alumni remain engaged through mentorship, leadership roles, and community representation, reinforcing the programs long-term, cohort-based model.through this integrated approach, asf addresses financial, academic, and social-emotional barriers to educational completion and workforce readiness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% 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 total spending goes to programs and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 43.9%; rating input score 44
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -67.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.85; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.5% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84% of revenue deployed · 43.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $175K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $81K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.