Edwins Leadership & Restaurant Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260656263
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Cleveland Heights, OH, USA
Phone
2169213333
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Vocational, Technical Schools

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,560,474
Expenses
$5,634,828
Assets
$1,606,342
Liabilities
$1,411,095

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRANDON E CHROSTOWSKI (PRESIDENT/FOUNDER/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRANDON E CHROSTOWSKI (PRESIDENT/FOUNDER/CEO): $219,423 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Edwins leadership & restaurant institute is a unique approach to giving formerly-incarcerated adults and similarly disadvantaged and at risk individuals a foundation in the hospitality industry while providing a support network necessary for a successful re-entry. Edwins' goal is to enhance the community of cleveland's vulnerable neighborhoods by providing its future leaders. Our mission is to teach a skilled trade in the culinary arts, empower willing minds through passion for the hospitality and prepare students for a successful transition into the world of business professionals.

What it reported doing in 2024

The goal of edwins' program is to create a pipeline of skilled talent into one of cleveland's growth industries: restaurant and hospitality.our program:- creates an educational program that provides 6 months of intensive training in food preparation, food service and hospitality- establishes a fully functioning kitchen and commercial restaurant that is open to the public and located within the city of cleveland- collaborates with an existing transition support organization in cleveland- provides a modest stipend for students attending and meeting the program's performance standards- provides students exposure to experienced industry specialists such as teachers, mentors, and potential employers- provides case management and assistance for prevention of any barriers for completion of the program, including assistance with housing, transportation, and clothing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.3%; rating input score 91; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.3%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 23 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.