G and J Foundation 1 Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954828269
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3235335807
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Child Day Care

Reported finances

Revenue
$524,320
Expenses
$220,296
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

People named in this filing

  • JOHNNIE JOHNSON (FOUNDER)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Providing child care for working parents

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 58%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -64.3% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $221K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.