African American Male Education Network & Development (A²MEND)

Legal name: African American Male Education Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
711037144
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Elk Grove, CA, USA
Phone
888-799-3970
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,652,425
Expenses
$2,274,538
Assets
$1,053,758
Liabilities
$3,489

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Edward Bush (Vice President)
  • Scott Thayer (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Erin Vines (Director): $220,417 total reported compensation
  • Edward Bush (Vice President): $34,000 total reported compensation
  • Herbert English (Treasurer): $23,323 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The African American Male Education Network and Development (A²MEND) organization is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit led by Black male educators who utilize their scholarly and professional expertise to foster institutional change within higher education to increase the success of Black male students.

What it reported doing in 2024

A2MEND has hosted annual African American Male Summits in which policy makers, trustees, administrators, faculty, staff and students come together to identify solutions to the barriers that African American men face in community colleges.The mission of the conference is to counteract the dismal forecast of the African American male in higher education, by centrally focusing on the role of the institution. Institutions of higher learning play a pivotal role in the education, leadership, support, and engagement of these students.

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 94% 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

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 40
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.1%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 1st 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.2%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 44.3% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 35.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 36.2% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 66.1% of revenue deployed · 77.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 13 board members independent · 0 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.