Private School Axis

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
851806443
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3107299139
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$523,523
Expenses
$886,879
Assets
$195,077
Liabilities
$50,231

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Collette B Zinn (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Collette B Zinn (Executive Director): $200,000 total reported compensation
  • Chuck Neddermeyer (Former Director): $97,210 total reported compensation
  • Annika Ihnat (Director): $94,278 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 are a nonprofit organization that partners with Los Angeles area's independent schools to create pathways for underrepresented students and families of color to access, navigate, and thrive in private education.

What it reported doing in 2025

Independent schools do not accurately represent the overall Los Angeles population, where more than 70% of residents are people of color. At Axis, it is our mission to change this. We actively promote and sustain cultural diversity in private schools, and a significant aspect of our program is focused on student placement. Axissupports students of color and their families as they navigate the private school application process, while connecting them with our established network of partner schools. We've had a 98%+ acceptance rate in independent schools for the past three years.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 50.7%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd 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: Limited
  • 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: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -69.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 53.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.5% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86% of revenue deployed · 50.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $450K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $200K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.