Impact Online Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770395654
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pleasanton, CA, USA
Phone
6467866872
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonprofit Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,722,355
Expenses
$3,164,907
Assets
$1,513,326
Liabilities
$2,003,158

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUDE OREILLEY (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN RACKWITZ (SR FULL STACK ENGINEER): $177,684 total reported compensation
  • HSIAOYUN SUE (DEVELOPMENT LEAD): $163,109 total reported compensation
  • RACHEL KESTNER (VP SALES MARKETING): $159,043 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Impact online d.b.a. Volunteermatch is creating a world where everyone has the opportunity to volunteer and every volunteer is working at their highest and best purpose. Since our inception our platform has activated more than 18 million volunteers delivering profound and lasting impact to people causes and society. Through our data we know that service is fundamental to human connection, essential in creating healthy communities and vital to delivering impact that reverberates well beyond the hours contributed. As such we are on a mission to grow participation as a means to building greater hope joy and connection in the world around us.

What it reported doing in 2024

Since 1998 VolunteerMatch has been crucial in society providing technology insights and social innovations to engage volunteers fostering healthier more connected individuals and communities. Our technology including VolunteerMatch.org an API for partner service delivery an online learning center and various public and private syndication programs serves as a hub for volunteers nonprofits governmental entities and corporations. We assist almost 150,000 nonprofits by offering tools and training for volunteer recruitment and management.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 80% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.4%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 70%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.32; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.3%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.4% of revenue deployed · 70% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $178K · 15 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $489K reported
  • Consistency: 43 of 44 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.