Planetread

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
571198966
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Piedmont, CA, USA
Phone
5104353175
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Remedial Reading, Reading Encouragement

Reported finances

Revenue
$150,427
Expenses
$543,734
Assets
$773,558
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Brij Kothari (Director): $148,019 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Scale PlanetReads Same Language Subtitling SLS innovation on mainstream entertainment content on TV and streaming in all languages for three purposes: 1 reading literacy 2 media access and 3 language learning driven by a strategy for systemwide adoption. In India where SLS is gaining traction it has the potential to benefit one billion people. Our system change effort will unfold over 5-7 years in India and is ultimately expected to benefit one billion people. This strategy shift is made possible by competing globally and winning a system change grant from Co-Impact. After successful implementation of SLS in India PlanetRead aims to scale SLS in other countries.

What it reported doing in 2024

Around 100 TV programs are being shown with Same Language Subtitles SLS giving over 200 million viewers regular reading practice and skills improvement. Brij Kothari is leading the system change effort for SLS adoption and implementation in India and working on the project full time.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 71% 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 reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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; 20th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -261.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.42; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 92.3% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -110.3% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -26.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $505K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $148K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.