Golden Dragon Project at Lincoln School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900782780
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5103901266
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$45,792
Expenses
$55,967
Assets
$86,724

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CLAUDIA LEA (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CLAUDIA LEA (PRESIDENT)
  • NANCY ROWAN (VICE PRESIDE)
  • JENNIFER LE (SECRETARY)

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

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

Overview

Mission

We, the parents and guardians of lincoln elementary school students, establish the golden dragon project (gdp), a volunteer organization for the purpose of fostering academic advanecment, intellectual curiosity, imaginative thought, and social responsibility in our children. The gdp will work with the teachers and principal of lincoln elementary school to supplement and support programs meeting these goals, and to raise and allocate funds to accomplish these goals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.9%; rating input score 93

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22.2%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.55; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $52K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.