Columbia Educational Robotics Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474219934
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Columbia, MO, USA
Rating
91
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$69,279
Expenses
$87,857
Assets
$60,638

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Kevin Gillis (Chair Board of directors)
  • Andrew Winslow (Board of Driectors)
  • Anand Chandrasekhar (Board of Directors)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide support and resources to FIRST Robotics teams in Boone County Missouri

What it reported doing in 2025

Columbia Educational Robotics Foundation renovated and outfitted a new 2,000 sq ft robotics facility in Parkade Plaza. The first full year of facility operation was very successful with regular use by 4 FTC teams including each of the 3 main CPS high schools one FLL team and the Army Ants FRC team for a total of ~10,000 youth-hours. In addition the facility hosted ~150 youth in robotics camps. All the FTC teams and the Army Ants participated in multiple competitions and won awards. The Army Ants won the highest award of FIRST the Impact Award at the 10,000 Lakes Regional in Minneapolis in March 2025 and competed in the FIRST Championship in Houston in April 2025 serving as team captain in the playoffs in 2025 for the first time.

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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

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: -26.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $88K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.