International Education Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680442386
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5102510500
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,315,502
Expenses
$1,062,671
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kiyoshi Nagai (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH CONOVER (Director): $111,085 total reported compensation
  • Naoki Hirota (Director): $45,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To facilitate the acquistion of english for non-native speakers, to prepare them both linguistically and culturally for academic studies and success at the college and/or university level.

What it reported doing in 2021

International Education Center is dedicated to supporting and preparing non-native English speaker for academic success in the United States through intensive English language training. Through a unique association with Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, California, IEC provides a non-credit bearing ESL curriculum that allows participants to gain the skills and confidence needed to transfer to Diablo Valley College (and other institutions) and pursue their Bachelor's Degrees through the transfer program.

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 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.1%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 63.2%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.2%; rating input score 67; 67th 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: 14.7%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.1% of revenue deployed · 63.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $672K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $111K · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $230K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2012 to 2021
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.