Ideal Education a Nj Nonprofit Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461389640
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Mays Landing, NJ, USA
Phone
6093188008
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,237,976
Expenses
$2,883,021
Assets
$9,468,315
Liabilities
$7,442,488

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MITAL PARIKH (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DHIREN PARIKH (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $155,400 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ideal Education DBA Ideal Institute of Technology is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit private career school that is licensed by the State of New Jersey Department of Education and the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Ideal Education is fully accredited by the Middle States Association. Ideal Institute operates two campuses in Atlantic County, New Jersey. The main campus is headquartered at 4403 Black Horse Pike, Unit 2141, Mays Landing; and the second campus is located at 121-123 S. Main Street, Pleasantville. A future home for Ideal is underway at 1000 W. Washington Ave., Pleasantville. Ideal, founded by Dhiren and Mital Parikh, opened its doors in 2016 in Absecon, NJ. Since the service industry dominated Atlantic County, the founders wanted to bring technology and business programs to adults to help them find sustainable, high paying employment. Microsoft Office, Computer Programs, Web Development, and Entrepreneurship programs are among the most popular programs of study. Many a

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide education on business and technology career training

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 78% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 45
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.5%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 73.6%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 75%; rating input score 75; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.28; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.79; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 28.8% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 39.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.5% of revenue deployed · 73.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $155K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 29 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.