One Laptop Per Child Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
542176407
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Phone
3053713755
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
International Educational Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,134,947
Expenses
$6,661,940
Assets
$23,431,064
Liabilities
$23,264,554

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To design, manufacture and distribute educational laptop computers to provide every child in the world access to new channels of learning, sharing and self-expression.

What it reported doing in 2012

One laptop per child association (olpc) continued developing evolutionary hardware and software in order to make powerful, low-cost technologies and connectivity available to children around the world. Olpc cultivated significant number of grassroots, opensource and industry relationships to constantly expand and improve the power consumption, cost and quality of these technologies. Olpc advocated one to one laptop -based education and learning programs with governments and other partners as a way to revolutionize education systems for children. Olpc and laptop technologies represent the best opportunity to effectively and quickly provide children with the skills, tools and knowledge needed to survive and thrive in the 21st century while also working to eradicate poverty and violence.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -61.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.52; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.99; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -21.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -65.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $270K · 9 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2012
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.