Armando Info Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
992590228
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Phone
7866203926
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Media, Communications Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$407,340
Expenses
$314,459
Assets
$174,392
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EWALD SCHARFENBERG (DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • EWALD SCHARFENBERG (DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT): $46,099 total reported compensation
  • ROBERTO DENIZ (DIRECT-SECRETARY): $46,099 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH POLISZUK (DIRECTOR-TREASURER): $36,699 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Armando.info, inc is organizer and operated and operated exclusively for educational purposes, specifically for engaging in investigative journalism to provide independent news stories from countries, including venezuela, where readers often struggle to find reliable sources of information due to the repressive regime, thus, the origanization aims to report on stories across borders the might not have place on other new sites. The organization produces and publishers journalist stories on topics such as corruption, money laundering, human reghts and environmental issues, the organization accoumplishers its purpose by posting theses stories on the website: https://armando.info

What it reported doing in 2025

Program service 1- conducted independent investigative journalism focuses on corruption governance and accountability in latin america (venezuela) published a series of evidence-based report that reached thousand of readers and were cited by international media expense usd 109842.80 program service 2- civic educational edit and training organized workshop and webinars for students journalist and community leaders on topics of transparency fact-cheching and the importance of access to reliable information expense usd 22.240

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.8%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 62.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 72.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $132K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 12 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.