The After-school Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261662587
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Pikesville, MD, USA
Phone
4105800740
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Child Day Care

Reported finances

Revenue
$230,042
Expenses
$211,693
Assets
$4,696
Liabilities
$61,048

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of TASI is to build the capacity of after school

What it reported doing in 2012

Tasi organizes two training institutes or mini-conference per year. In addition; tasi conduct certificate trainings and advance youth development. Tasi conduct site visit of afterschool programs to monitor program quality. Tasi sends out weekly lists or messages with announcement on funding, training and research information.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 87% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 13; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -31.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -33.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $102K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2010 to 2012
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.