Bluedot Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
862758477
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Westlake Village, CA, USA
Phone
8187037660
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$449,589
Expenses
$451,146
Assets
$82,202
Liabilities
$167

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GRACIELA MONTGOMERY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GRACIELA MONTGOMERY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $75,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Bluedot institute is a nonprofit organization that develops environmental programs for high school students, with a focus on leadership, communication, and creativity. These programs are designed to connect, educate and empower youth.

What it reported doing in 2025

Publishing pathway for high school students this program offers professional mentorship in various literary styles, editorial guidance, and opportunities to publish original work. This virtual series features guest lecturers and prose assignments focusing on environmental issues, encouraging participants to bridge disparate viewpoints and develop a constructive future vision. Through this program, students strengthen their writing skills while building professional portfolios.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.6%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.9%; rating input score 96; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -0.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -32.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 48.7% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -40.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.6% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $313K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.