Children's Project Educational Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270775488
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2009
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4157501885
Rating
92
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$121,474
Expenses
$128,694
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL A GALLIGAN (PRESIDENT)
  • ALELI WARREN BROWN (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MICHAEL A GALLIGAN (PRESIDENT)
  • ALELI WARREN BROWN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MATHILDE WOLFF (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide residential living and education to destitute children in india

What it reported doing in 2015

Children's project educational foundation, inc. (cpef) and children's project trust (cpt), a registered public charitable trust in india, will welcome children ages 2 to 16 years of age into our residential school. The organizations will provide a home where the children will receive three nutritionally balanced meals a day. The organizations will also provide counseling, medical treatment and education to the children in their care.the organizations also have in-house teachers for primary school teaching and vocational education. As thechildren become adults, they will begin to become independent, find jobs and get married.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 91.2%; rating input score 91

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 67.6% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 59.9% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.6% of revenue deployed · 91.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $117K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.