Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization (ACSTO)

Legal name: Arizona Christian School Tuition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860931047
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chandler, AZ, United States
Phone
480.820.0403
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$37,517,027
Expenses
$27,469,951
Assets
$44,322,059
Liabilities
$6,769

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT YARBROUGH (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVEN B YARBROUGH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • SCOTT SAUNDERS (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SCOTT YARBROUGH (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVEN B YARBROUGH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • BARB BARNES (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

ACSTO exists to make Christian Education affordable for everyone through effective implementation of the Arizona Private School Tuition Tax Credit law. Sally has been involved in Christian Education for more than 20 years—as a parent, volunteer, teacher, founder of a Christian middle school, and school board president. She continues her passion for Christian Education at ACSTO, where she brings her experience, enthusiasm, and creativity to help families, schools, and supporters understand the tuition tax credit program. Sally is married and has three grown children. She loves spending time with family, enjoys the outdoors, and would like to spend more time traveling. WENDY RANKIN.

What it reported doing in 2024

Organization awarded grants/scholarships to students during the period ending 6/30/25. Since inception in 1998 the organization has awarded grants/scholarships to over 43,000 diferent students pursuant to ars 43-1089.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 99.2%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: $392.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th 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: 26.8%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.61; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 73% of revenue deployed · 99.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $27.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.