Go for It Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201510526
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7203167497
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$148,214
Expenses
$128,999
Assets
$31,276
Liabilities
$2,450

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUDY A ZERAFA (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JUDY A ZERAFA (PRESIDENT): $73,800 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide students, and those who support them, with the tools for achieving success.

What it reported doing in 2014

The main delivery model for our program is the go for it immersion program in schools and youth clubs (such as boys and girls clubs). Classroom teachers and youth club staff members are trained and certified to teach the go for it student program. By integrating the seven keys to success into curriculum and activities throughout the year, all staff ensure that students have the tools for achievement and developing self-confidence. Since 2007, we have trained more than 400 parents and 800 educators and youth club staff members who are currently providing the program for approx. 7,250 ece-8 students in Wyoming, Colorado and Montana.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 79.2%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

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: 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 13%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 57.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -55.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -14.2% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -24.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69% of revenue deployed · 79.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $102K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $74K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.