Armstead Academic Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
833737117
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
4088070612
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Independent Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$543,907
Expenses
$410,247
Assets
$627,875
Liabilities
$6,088

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JARED MUELA (PAST EXEC DI): $137,683 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The armstead academic project invests its time, resources, and passion into creating stronger communities in the sacramento, California area by providing space and direct support for local organizations that provide charitable services to economically disadvantaged children in the area. Armstead academic project seeks out and identifies community leaders who are already managing and running under-funded direct charitable programs for children, and provides those leaders and programs with additional resources and infrastructure to allow those programs to increase their size and scale within the community. Armstead academic project aims to obtain additional funding sufficient to establish a physical location that serves as a cornerstone community center that is anchored in the sacramento area.

What it reported doing in 2024

Armstead academic project provides fund to organizations through an application process. The project awards grants to applicants based on the following criteria: each applicant must provide a description of their project, the total cost, and the amount requested from aap. In their grant applications, applicants must describe the work of their agency or program, including a brief description of the organization's purposes. Next, the applicant must explain the specific project to be funded by including a description of the project, its goals, a timeline for implementation, and specific activities that will be funded. Applicants must also provide a description of the population that will benefit from the project receiving teh grant. Finally, applicants must provide an evaluation of their expected results and how they will measure the effectiveness of their activities.

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 96% 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 - 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: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.7%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 72.8%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 24.6%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.53; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.6%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.2% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.5% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.7% of revenue deployed · 72.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $299K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $138K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.