The English Advantage Mexico

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
990392254
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Englewood, CO, USA
Phone
7202314483
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,962,462
Expenses
$488,947
Assets
$2,668,232
Liabilities
$1,144,192

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Shane E Farmer (President)
  • Rebekah H Layton (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Shane E Farmer (President): $283,004 total reported compensation
  • Rebekah H Layton (Vice President): $188,917 total reported compensation
  • Isaac McBeth (Secretary): $178,762 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The English Advantage ("TEA") is organized and operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes to serve poor, distressed, and underprivileged populations in the United States and abroad by providing accessible, high-quality English language instruction. Through live, in-person and virtual programs led by native English-speaking teachersbacked by a research-driven curriculum, relational learning opportunities, and partnerships with local nonprofits. TEA empowers children, adults, and entire families with the linguistic skills they need to improve academic success and economic earning potential.

What it reported doing in 2024

The English Advantage ("TEA") is organized and operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes to serve poor, distressed, and underprivileged populations in the United States and abroad by providing accessible, high-quality English language instruction. Through live, in-person and virtual programs led by native English-speaking teachers backed by a research-driven curriculum, relational learning opportunities, and partnerships with local nonprofits. TEA empowers children, adults, and entire families with the linguistic skills they need to improve academic success and economic earning potential.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 70% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 9
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 22.9%; rating input score 23
  • Program expense ratio: 91.9%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 75.1%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.46; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 62.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 22.9% of revenue deployed · 91.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $449K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $283K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 23/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.