Aoba Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822947514
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022963390
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$261,657
Expenses
$276,153
Assets
$392,897
Liabilities
$11,821

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DAVE DARGENZIO (DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID FERRARA (VICE CHAIR)
  • DAVID GREENSPUN (DIRECTOR)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The aoba educational foundation (aef), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, was created to address the talent crisis in the commercial real estate industry by focusing on the critical need to promote careers in building operations, engineering, and maintenance. We connect job seekers, training centers, workforce development programs, and employers all to help companies recruit, develop, train, and retain the next generation of skilled tradespeople in the metro dc region. Our work provides long-term, tangible economic benefits and a workforce development pathway to stable, lucrative careers. For years, commercial property managers have been challenged to recruit, hire, and retain the next generation of building operations employees. In response to this pressing need, the aef was formed as a vehicle to create a comprehensive, regional solution to what many refer to as the engineering talent crisis. Although our primary mission is focused on commercial real estate careers, we are also tak

What it reported doing in 2024

The main purpose and undertaking of the aef is to address a commercial real estate talent crises by focusing on the critical need to promote careers in property management engineering and maintenance. To facilitate this purpose the aef launched the office building engineering internship program. Program revenue and expenses were associated with the establishing and operation of a dynamic educational, marketing, and recruitment outreach, as well as professional development programs, to promote building engineering and maintenance careers throughout the region. To facilitate this purpose, the aef launched the office building engineering internship program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% 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

SUPPORTED - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.9%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 67.9%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.42; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.9% of revenue deployed · 67.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $188K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.