Project Grad USA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760666426
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
8328316039
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,091,123
Expenses
$6,641,944
Assets
$1,190,082
Liabilities
$2,836,737

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DARYL OGDEN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • TAMALA BOYD SHAW (VICE PRESIDENT OF SCHOOL D)

Highest reported compensation

  • DARYL OGDEN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $230,625 total reported compensation
  • TAMALA BOYD SHAW (VICE PRESIDENT OF SCHOOL D): $124,950 total reported compensation
  • MARCY SINGER-GABELLA PH D (CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER): $19,371 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of project grad USA (grad) is to ensure a quality public school education for students in low-income areas so that more students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, graduate from high school prepared to excel in college and beyond. Grad focuses its efforts exclusively on chronically low-performing schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The mission of each grad academy, as part of the grad academies network of project grad USA, is to provide all students with an outstanding 21st century education, to prepare them for college and career success, and to inspire them to become engaged participants in our democracy.

What it reported doing in 2015

Project grad USA (grad) has over 20 years of experience successfully serving some of the highest-need schools in the nation. The traditional grad "partnership" model was continued in 2013 in the state of Pennsylvania, where grad, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania department of education, served high school students through it's Pennsylvania college access challenge grant program. Through this program, grad worked with students in four high school districts in Pennsylvania through may 2013, providing tutoring and college access counseling in order to increase high school graduation rates and readiness for college. When grad's partnership with the Pennsylvania department of education ended in may, one participating school district in Pennsylvania, woodland hills, choose to engage grad on their own to continue to provide college access counseling and tutoring for the 2013/2014 school year.grad was named an officially authorized program of the u.s. Department of education under the higher education opportunity act. In 2012 grad was designated as an official turnaround partner by the Massachusetts department of elementary and secondary education. In 2013, grad was named the operator of dean technical high school, a public high school in holyoke, Massachusetts. This school services grades 9-12 in a technical/vocational high school, and grad began it's operation of the school in september 2013 for the 2013/2014 school year.grad became an official operator for the achievement school district (asd) of tennesseegrad in 2012 as well. Grad academy memphis, an asd high school, opened in 2013. At this academy, grads proven college access and parent & community engagement strategies have been integrated with the new tech network (ntn) model to provide comprehensive wrap-around services that foster a college-bound culture. These models have shown success across a variety of post-high school options, and significantly increase high school graduation rates for low-income students. The school opened with 185 ninth grade students in august 2013 for the 2013/2014 school year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 75% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 67.9%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -30.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.38; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 35.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 67.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $231K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.