Chelsea Education Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
412240509
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Chelsea, MA, USA
Phone
6174664477
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,401
Expenses
$21,508
Assets
$114,100
Liabilities
$104,770

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Almi G Abeyta (President and Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Almi G Abeyta (President and Director): $225,879 total reported compensation
  • Daniel Mojica (Director): $114,807 total reported compensation
  • Gerald McCue (Assistant Treasurer): $2,407 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The general purpose of the Chelsea Education Foundation is to support Chelsea Public Schools. Activities include afterschool and enrichment programs, adult literacy programs, college readiness and savings programs and teacher recognition.

What it reported doing in 2025

Chelsea Inversant College Savings Program - Chelsea Education Foundation serves as the fiscal agent for Chelsea Inversant, a savings program that, in partnership with the nonprofit Inversant, Inc., challenges families of Chelsea Public Schools' students to save up to $1500 for college expenses that are matched, dollar for dollar, from donations made to Chelsea Education Foundation for Chelsea Inversant. 8 students were enrolled in Chelsea Inversant as of December 2025. Chelsea Inversant promotes college readiness and family engagement by encouraging savings and engaging parents through financial aid workshops, outreach, and other activities. Chelsea Education Foundation provided 10 scholarships totaling $5,637.07 in 2024. In the summer of 2022, Inversant announced that it would no longer be offering its scholarship program and was merged into its sister organization, La Vida Scholars. Students at the high school will now be directed to apply to the La Vida Scholars Program. The 8 students that remain in the Inversant program will continue with CEF involvement and be supported under the terms and conditions of the Inversant program. Students enrolled in the Inversant program, but who have not yet graduated will be provided support from La Vida and Chelsea Public Schools.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 53
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 98.1%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 14th 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: 71.1%; rating input score 71; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.9%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.31; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.92; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.4% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.6% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.2% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $21K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $226K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.