Americas Most Cost Effective Charities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273132554
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Larkspur, CA, USA
Phone
4159252672
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$755,457
Expenses
$755,457
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EDWARD BOYER (President)

People named in this filing

  • EDWARD BOYER (President)
  • NANCY CALDWELL MEAD (BOARD VP)
  • THOMAS LAYMAN (BOARD SEC/TRSR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To find and certify the most cost-effective charities in america and present them together in one place for giver consideration. These charities spend 95 cents or more of every dollar you send them on program, and just five cents or less on fundraising and administration.

What it reported doing in 2018

The federation's primary purpose is to screen and certify charities that meet standards for inclusion in corporate and government workplace charitable fund drives and to act as the central representative and fiscal agent in those drives, thereby reducing fund raising costs for both the charities and contributors. These expenses relate to distributions to the thirty five member agencies from amounts collected through the campaign.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 86% 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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.3%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 95.3%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $37.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.1%; rating input score 97; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -16% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.3% of revenue deployed · 95.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $720K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $102K reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2011 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.