Leonardo Academy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391881853
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,993,681
Expenses
$1,495,430
Assets
$1,203,764
Liabilities
$236,674

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL ARNY (PRESIDENT)
  • JOSEPH HARA (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL ARNY (PRESIDENT): $25,171 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Leonardo academy is a charitable nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing sustainabililty by leveraging innovative tools and information to motivate the competitive market. By utilizing and interdisciplinary approach to sustainability strategies, education and

What it reported doing in 2022

Sustainability services-the sustainable building services program assisted companies persuing their leed certification in future years. Additionally l.a. Performed leed-eb suilding certification application reviews for 194 leed-eb certified buildings. C&g climate footprint calculations and offsets were conducted as well as policies and procedures for companies. The sustainable transportation program partnered with fleets to reduce each entities diesel emissions through various grant programs inclusive of the epa dera program. The upgraded equipment included diesel engines in delivery trucks, construction equipment and buses. Sustainable land management activities continued on property owned by leo-valley ridge preserve- this involves restoration of acres of land to prairies and oak savanna.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 85% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.4%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.4% of revenue deployed · 85.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $25K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • 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 33/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.