Asteam Village Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465023913
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
9132092379
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Reported finances

Revenue
$725,645
Expenses
$759,354
Assets
$138,486
Liabilities
$207,428

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM WELLS JR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM WELLS JR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $88,867 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Asteam village focuses on engaging students, families, and educators in science, technology, engineering, arts and math (steam) pathways to facilitate carerre and education readiness for participation in the 21st century economies of today and tomorrow

What it reported doing in 2024

Asteam village received the broadband communities cornerstone award for our student-led community broadband networks. Students learned how to design and build i.t. Infrastructure networks installed 18.000 ft of cable, installed 40 security cameras, and 30 wifi access points. Students installed and upgraded 60 security camera system for local church students attended national society of black engineers (nsbe) 50th competition; copeted in rc car engineering and robotics. Three of the rootics teams were award winners at multiple competitions. The girls future city team won engineering award for their competition.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: 45.5%; rating input score 45; 11th 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: -4.6%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.5; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.3% of revenue deployed · 73.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $561K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 45/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.