Ajc Childrens Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
650745178
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
Phone
9544787394
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$323,666
Expenses
$312,616
Assets
$132,916
Liabilities
$1,258

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CRISTINA ADDISON (CEO)
  • ANN L FLORY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CRISTINA ADDISON (CEO): $24,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Assistance and support of the a.h.l.e. Foundation in san francisco de yojoa honduras. The facility provides everything needed to engage youth with structured activities for the development and dignity and self-worth through fostering social connectedness and acedemic sucess

What it reported doing in 2025

The sponsorship program helps cover the operating budget of the a.h.l.e. Foundation in honduras. The costs include sustaining the facilities at the foundation. The facilities include a dormitory, cafeteria, classrooms, computer facility, musical program, gymnasium, soccer field, basketball court, swimming pool, playground, agricultural farm, and lastly a medical facility to accommodate visiting doctors and dentists. In addition to this, the sponsorship program covers the cost of food, clothing, transportation, and school supplies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 89% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.4%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.9% of revenue deployed · 85.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $268K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $24K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.