Reading Village

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208520265
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Boulder, CO, USA
Phone
3038832822
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$278,257
Expenses
$394,537
Assets
$95,110
Liabilities
$881

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDA SMITH (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CAROLYN FAIRMAN (EXECUTIVE DI): $64,701 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to empower youth to erdicate illiteracy and lead their communities out of poverty. Reading village transforms lives through literacy. Leveraging reading and education as mechanisms to end poverty, we create the conditions for youth to discover their true potential and become agents of change in the world. Through collaboration and innovation, whole communities unleash their power to flourish under their own resources and creativity.

What it reported doing in 2018

Through our leaders and readers program we provided high school scholarships and leadership development training for 96 guatemalan teens. In return, these teens gave back to their communities by leading weekly literacy ativities for a few thousand children, helping them to develop spanish language skills, critical and creative thinking skills, and a love of reading.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 61.5%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • 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: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -41.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86% of revenue deployed · 61.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $242K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2013 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.