Lansing Promise

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453363322
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Lansing, MI, USA
Phone
5175123616
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$920,487
Expenses
$1,071,584
Assets
$2,993,082
Liabilities
$115,518

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Justin Sheehan (Former Executive Director)
  • Jayme A King (Executive Director)
  • Carmen Burnell (Vice-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Justin Sheehan (Former Executive Director): $150,501 total reported compensation
  • Jayme A King (Executive Director): $18,226 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We provide scholarships and support for Lansing students journeys to postsecondary completion.

What it reported doing in 2025

Lansing Promise is a place-based scholarship program that supports Lansing students from kindergarten through high school graduation through college and career readiness initiatives designed to prepare them for postsecondary success. The organization provides scholarships to eligible graduates of Lansing schools who attend Lansing Community College, partnered four-year colleges and universities, or approved professional and skilled trades programs. Through scholarship support and readiness programming, Lansing Promise helps students access, enroll in, and complete postsecondary education and training opportunities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.5%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 4th 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: 96%; rating input score 96; 47th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -16.4%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.79; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.7%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.5% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $906K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $151K · 22 people listed · 0 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: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.