Read to Me Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471224251
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Salinas, CA, USA
Phone
8312363462
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$577,094
Expenses
$472,504
Assets
$745,440
Liabilities
$17,846

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Charlie Osburn (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jason Little (Executive Dir.): $91,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Read to Me Project helps under-served children achieve kindergarten readiness and a lifetime of literacy by empowering school age brothers and sisters to read to their young siblings at home. We also raise public awareness about the literacy crisis and the need for language development and pre-reading skills during a child's first five years of life.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided books and instructional support to 956 elementary students in low-income schools across Monterey County, enabling them to read to approximately 1,027 younger siblings at home. Additionally, 868 students without younger siblings participated in classroom sessions, learning about brain development in young children and improving their own reading techniques. These students also received books to take home and practice their skills. Read to Me Project also held classes for parents and teen parents, emphasizing the importance of language development and pre-reading skills during a childs critical first five years. Throughout the year, 26 parents and 30 teen parents attended these sessions. As part of our engagement efforts, we distributed over 850 carefully selected childrens books to Read to Me Project students, allowing them to share the joy of reading with their younger siblings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.4%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 62.5%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.1%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.58; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.3%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.4% of revenue deployed · 62.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $295K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.