Aerostar Avion Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824591587
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3128836383
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$516,330
Expenses
$243,663
Assets
$340,300
Liabilities
$6,613

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Tammera Holmes (CEO- Former)
  • Sherrelle Withers (Vice President)
  • Kristy Farrakhan (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kristy Farrakhan (CEO): $65,000 total reported compensation
  • Selena Berry (Program Manager): $45,000 total reported compensation
  • Tammera Holmes (CEO- Former): $22,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See Schedule O .

What it reported doing in 2024

Aerostars program exist with the vision to enhance, promote and support the academic awareness of aviation and aeronautical career path opportunities for students, particularly female, minority, underprivileged and at-risk youth. By providing aviation academic curriculum development, programs, activities, and support services for youth Grades K-12, interested in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, Aerostar has paved the way for the future of our industry

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 68% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 18.7%; rating input score 19
  • Program expense ratio: 39.7%; rating input score 40
  • Fundraising efficiency: $94.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 52.8%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 54.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.2% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 18.7% of revenue deployed · 39.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $97K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 19/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.