The Add Impact Network
Legal name: The Add Impact Network Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 261809507
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2028603211
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Recreation& Sports N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,156,636
- Expenses
- $1,261,053
- Assets
- $88,171
- Liabilities
- $23,554
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Robert Walsh (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Melissa Parsons (Executive Dir.): $125,000 total reported compensation
- Ben Dalley (Director): $117,000 total reported compensation
- Carl Sylvester (Operations Manager): $82,620 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Promote charitable, social and educational events that support the autism and disabilities community. Bike to the Beach would like to thank Michael Aquino and The Linbeck Group for their support. We are looking forward to a great ride and finish line this year! [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][ult_buttons btn_title=”Register to Bike to the Beach” btn_link=”url: https%3A%2F%2Fmy.biketothebeach.org%2Fregister.asp|||” btn_align=”ubtn-center” btn_size=”ubtn-large” btn_title_color=”#fed344″ btn_bg_color=”#1b4284″ btn_bg_color_hover=”#fed344″ btn_title_color_hover=”#1b4284″ icon_size=”32″ btn_icon_pos=”ubtn-sep-icon-at-left” btn_font_family=”font_family: Lato|font_call: Lato|variant:900″ btn_font_style=”font-weight:900;” btn_font_size=”desktop:1.
What it reported doing in 2025
Organize various cycling and promotional events to raise funds to promote cycling, fitness and awareness that support the autism and disabilities communities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 92
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 11
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.6%; rating input score 97
- Program expense ratio: 88.6%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $41.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 95.5%; rating input score 95; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -9%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 25.7%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 96.6% of revenue deployed · 88.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 16 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.
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.