National Urban Alliance for Effective Education Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
113481322
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021
Location
Syosset, NY, USA
Phone
5168024192
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$565,357
Expenses
$742,679
Assets
$161,242
Liabilities
$10,592

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Eric Cooper (President)
  • Stefanie C Baker (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Eric Cooper (President): $178,318 total reported compensation
  • Stefanie C Baker (Executive Director): $23,654 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The NUAs mission is to substantiate an irrefutable belief in the capacity of all public school children to achieve the high intelectual performance demanded by our ever changing global community.

What it reported doing in 2021

Osso, MN - This CLEAR/NUA collaboration involves joint design and implementation planning two NUA directed three day sessions re collaboration, design and planning to ensure that the unique transformational work growing out of this partnership continues to address the issues of race and culture on teaching and learning. NUA will conduct training sessions for coaches/teacher leaders. Coaches/teacher leaders will demonstrate their instructional leadership by sustaining the successes of improved school climate and High Intellectual Performances through the use of the NUA High Operational Practices and philosophies explicated in the Pedagogy of Confidence. The District had moved to a virtual platform during 2021.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.1%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 64%; rating input score 64
  • 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: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -31.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.2%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -14.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.1% of revenue deployed · 64% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $476K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $178K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.