Heads Up-a University Neighborhood Initiative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521975043
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023409699
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Adult, Child Matching Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,242,712
Expenses
$1,052,942
Assets
$-84
Liabilities
$125,292

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

The mission of Heads Up is to provide children and youth from low income neighborhoods with the academic skills they need to succeed and to provide college students the opportunity to understand those needs in order to promote their development as leaders motivated to effect social change.

What it reported doing in 2010

Youth program founded in in 1996, Heads Up operates after school tututoring and summer learning programs for children living low income areas of Washington DC. Heads Up draws on university students as it's tutors, mentors and instructors. Heads Up aims to improve the academic performance and reading grade levels of students in low performing public schools while meeting the afterschool and summer childcare needs of their parents. The youth program of Heads Up served approx 850 students K-5th grade students druing the 2009-2010 school year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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: 100
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

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; 60th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: -0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $735K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $56K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.