Alternatives for Youth Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043276173
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Marlborough, MA, USA
Phone
5088773690
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,570,492
Expenses
$749,658
Assets
$44,730,231
Liabilities
$598,729

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TAMMY MELLO (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • TAMMY MELLO (PRESIDENT & CEO): $346,690 total reported compensation
  • DAVID BURKE (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $255,932 total reported compensation
  • PAULA STAHL (DIRECTOR OF CHILDRENS CHARTER): $202,216 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide support for programs and activities consistent with the mission of the key program incorporated, a public charity exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the irc.

What it reported doing in 2024

The purpose of ayf is to support programs and activities that are fundamentally consistent with key's mission to reshape the lives of troubled youth and families. Ayf accomplishes this goal by providing grant funding, as follows: start-up funds - for new and innovative projects in the field of juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health that are related to ayf's stated purpose.general operating support - for not-for-profit organizations having a demonstrated record of accomplishment in promoting advances and improvements in the juvenile justice, child welfare, and/or mental health systems.project support - for projects that have successfully addressed important juvenile justice, child welfare, and/or mental health problems, and offer the potential for local, state, and/or national replication.academic scholarships - for current and former clients of key who are working toward continuing their education in an accredited institution and for students pursuing an advanced degree in social work.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.4%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 77.5%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 52.3%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 59.67; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.4% of revenue deployed · 77.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $581K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $347K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 17 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.