Alameda Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942867769
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Alameda, CA, USA
Phone
5103377189
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,005,974
Expenses
$916,202
Assets
$1,439,810
Liabilities
$257,457

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kelly Scott (President)
  • Danielle London (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Vicki Sedlack (Executive Dir.): $100,209 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

AEF serves as a critical bridge toward equitable and inclusive educational outcomes for Alameda TK-12 public school students.

What it reported doing in 2024

For the 2024-2025 fiscal year, Alameda Education Foundations primary achievements included: Running 146 after school enrichment classes providing educational opportunities in the arts, athletics, STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) and languages for 902 K-8th grade students. Running 4 weeks of summer camps with 78 camps and 1,151 registrations. Managing a competitive Middle School Sports program consisting of coed volleyball, girls and boys basketball, and girls and boys track and field serving 627 6th 8th graders. Providing 75 teachers with Mini Grants valued at $53,000, supporting approximately 14,000 TK-12 students. Supporting 800 low-income students with new backpacks and school supplies. Sponsoring Care Solace, a service that connects people with appropriate mental health care services and is available to all AUSD students, staff, and their families, totally approximately 800 inbound interactions. Running visual arts programs for elementary students impacting approximately 600 students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.4%; rating input score 96; 43rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.9%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.57; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.9%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.3% of revenue deployed · 85.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $784K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.