Independent School Alliance for Minority Affairs

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953985518
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Culver City, CA, USA
Phone
2134842411
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,039,839
Expenses
$879,288
Assets
$1,342,655
Liabilities
$323,709

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANA ADAMS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ALEX AMIN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANA ADAMS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $214,914 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Independent school alliance identifies, supports, and connects underrepresented and underserved students and families in our cities to independent schools because all students should have access to the premier world class institutions that prepare global leaders.

What it reported doing in 2024

Admissions services and programs: we collect, review and distribute admissions materials on behalf of families. Our widely accepted common application and individualized advocacy ensures the best results for our families. Students and families admitted into the cohort receive one on one counseling o independent school choice. We offer intentional application support and have deep knowledge of the communities we serve. Our nine month admissions support program features an array of workshops to help families navigate financial assistance, school decisions and admissions interviews.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.5%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 65.9%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.4%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.53; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.4%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.5% of revenue deployed · 65.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $579K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $215K · 18 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.