After School Enrichment Program

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943331311
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4158632737
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,285,575
Expenses
$2,002,773
Assets
$2,766,155
Liabilities
$204,338

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Justin Gregg (President)
  • Beth Pototo (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ramiro Lule (Executive Dir.): $101,448 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

ASEP's mission is to provide the community with equal access to quality after school enrichment programming. ASEP combines Arts Enrichment, Academic Support and Health & Wellness into a comprehensive and specialized educational experience.

What it reported doing in 2024

ASEP provides the community with equal access to quality after school enrichment programming. ASEP combines Arts Enrichment, Academic Support and Health & Wellness into one educational experience. Here is what ASEP offers to our communities below! Comprehensive ASEP Comprehensive ASEP is our all-in-one after school program where students are picked up, fed a healthy snack and are taken care of, starting right after school until pick up at 6:00pm. All of our students are picked up directly from their classrooms and escorted to their after school programs.During Comprehensive ASEP, students engage in a variety of activities including Theme Based Learning, Homework & Tutoring Assistance, Arts Enrichment and PlaySEP. ASEP Language ProgramThe ASEP Language Enrichment Program is a student-centered, language and multicultural convergence model that serves TK-5 Spanish and Mandarin learners. The ASEP Language Program commingles a blend of academic and a play-based learning approach. The ASEP Language Program is developed to meet the needs of our community by providing language learning experience to students in grades K-5 through a 50% Playbase and 50% Literacy model. Our curriculum structure is designed through bi-weekly themes aligned with art, music, Playsep (Physical education), Reading and Literacy Comprehension.ASEP Specialty ClubsASEP's Specialty Club programs offer the McKinley & Daniel Webster communities a part-time option with even more enrichment opportunities. Students are picked up directly from day school teachers, fed a health snack and begin club classes on site at the school. All of the clubs last 1-2 hours right after school and occur 1-2 days a week.Lunchtime Wellness ProgramThe Lunch Time Wellness Program is a joint venture between ASEP and day school administrations. The Lunch Time Wellness Program (LTWP) was brought to McKinley in 2009 to provide structure during the lunch-play period and to make the playground a safe and all-inclusive environment. In 2017 ASEP launched a LTWP at the Daniel Webster School Site. While focusing on fitness based physical activity, play, improving social and teamwork skills and conflict resolution in a manner that is fun. LTWP also addresses the concerns of having sufficient supervision on the playground. During the day school lunch recess ASEP teachers set up play stations for the children. Students are taught the rules of each life skills themed game and have a choice of what games they would like to participate in. These games are rotated to keep things fresh. ASEP was able to shift services to a virtual model to adapt due to COVID and continue serving our communities with diverse programming!

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 67% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.8%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 67.1%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $41.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 12.4%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.38; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.8% of revenue deployed · 67.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $101K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.