CfAL for Digital Inclusion

Legal name: Concepts for Adaptive Learning Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061623641
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
New Haven, CT, US
Phone
475.285.6500
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$293,006
Expenses
$274,410
Assets
$173,708
Liabilities
$2,192

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TESHA TRAMONTANO KELLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TESHA TRAMONTANO KELLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $78,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to increase the knowledge and use of technology for both youth and adults, preparing them for success in both school and career, and in a constantly changing digital society.

What it reported doing in 2024

Youth programming-in partnership with local youth programs cfal offers afterschool and summer programming. Participants learn building and coding robots photo editing and more. High school aged youth have the opportunity to refurbish their own computers. All our youth technology programs are free. Ages 8 through 15-programs for this age group are in partnership with local youth agencies. We offer after school and summer programming at their locations. Youth learn coding robotics creating and editing videos. See sch. Oages 16 through 18-high school aged students learn how to rebuild a computer. They also learn software and hardware applications. At the end of the program they get to keep a laptop that they worked on. The computers that they work on go back into the community to families that do not have a computer in the home. The students also gain community service hours.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.7%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 69.1%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $488.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 6.3%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 64.7% of revenue deployed · 69.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $190K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 41 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.