Educational Advancement Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232593707
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010
Location
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Phone
2154722500
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,106,656
Expenses
$8,952,565
Assets
$920,816
Liabilities
$1,723,675

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide programs designed to supplement and enrich the educational environment and experiences of students in the School District of Philadelphia.

What it reported doing in 2010

Provided high quality after school and summer programming for middle and high school students in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.7%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.87; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 36.9% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 4 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2009 to 2010
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.