Agenda for Children
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 721058157
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New Orleans, LA, US
- Phone
- 1.800.486.1712
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $53,876,627
- Expenses
- $52,626,234
- Assets
- $22,653,707
- Liabilities
- $12,618,420
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JENNIFER ROBERTS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- JENNIFER ROBERTS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $261,461 total reported compensation
- MAX WEISS (CHIEF OF STAFF & LEGAL DIRECTOR): $175,319 total reported compensation
- ANNA WILLIAMSON (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $171,261 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Agenda for Children works to make Louisiana a state in which all children can thrive.
What it reported doing in 2024
Agenda for children was named the lead administrator of orleans parish's new early care and education millage for 2023-2028. Since then, we have spearheaded the country's third-largest expansion of early childhood education and numerous innovations that have been replicated throughout the state and nation; increasing service by over 160% and reaching over 2,200 children ages 0-3. Afc secured $23 million in matching state funding through the early childhood education fund (ecef) to support over 800+ accessible early childhood education seats for children ages 0-3. We embarked upon a new contract to provide child care resource and referral services in 11 parishes, continuing work that started in 1989, and over 8,000 hours of coaching to teachers and leaders at 184 early learning programs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 96% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 95
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 94.1%; rating input score 94
- Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: $387.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.3%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 29.1% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 28% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 25.9% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 94.1% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $50.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $261K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.6M reported
- Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 140 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 135 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.