I-impactnow

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274097193
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
5154420749
Rating
94
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$86,541
Expenses
$99,942
Assets
$8,007
Liabilities
$2,997

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATIE CAMPBELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • CARL PEASLEE (BOARD CHAIR)
  • EMILY LIPPOLD CHENEY (SECRETARY)
  • AVA SUZUKI-LAMBRECHT (TREASURER)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Aynah provides cooperative education experiences both in the united states and around the world, connecting students to cooperation, leadership skills, and cross cultural exchanges.

What it reported doing in 2015

Building connections for students in the co-op movement - aynah allies with aligned organizations to promote more eductional and work opportunities for students in the co-op movement, supporting students to attend co-op conferences and doing strategic planning with organizations about how to promote co-op education more effectively.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.4%; rating input score 95

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 66.2% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -73.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $95K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.