Aip Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860984827
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
Phone
5203180800
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Safety Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,957,715
Expenses
$2,811,594
Assets
$3,601,037
Liabilities
$1,187,877

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GREIG F CRAFT (PRESIDENT)
  • HOANG THI NA HUONG (DEPUTY CEO)
  • MIRJAM SIDIK (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • GREIG F CRAFT (PRESIDENT): $234,448 total reported compensation
  • MIRJAM SIDIK (CEO): $139,698 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH INGEGNERI (DIRECTOR): $6,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Aip foundation's mission is to deliver effective interventions that improve road safety in low and middle-income countries.

What it reported doing in 2024

Safe school zones and speed reduction: aip foundation works with governments, civil society and local communities to create safer, more walkable environments for children and youth. We incorporate comprehensive interventions including targeted education, road infrastructure modifications, public awareness campaigns, and advocacy for safer speeds and speed limit enforcement in school zones. These programs are carried out across our countries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 41
  • Accountability: 38
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.1%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 64%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $148.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 25%; rating input score 25; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.28; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.1% of revenue deployed · 64% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $234K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 25/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.