The Launch Pad Teen Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465601468
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Prescott, AZ, USA
Phone
9286322996
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,236,363
Expenses
$1,108,714
Assets
$1,497,473
Liabilities
$2,352

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Andrew Baird (President)
  • Lily Montoya (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Courtney Osterfelt (Executive Dir.): $65,160 total reported compensation
  • Catherine Robbins (Director): $59,000 total reported compensation
  • Hannah Mailand (Director): $56,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Launch Pad is an all-inclusive space and does not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, class, religion, or ability. The Launch Pad is a youth driven and focused space, providing programming that is culturally relevant to teens in Yavapai County. We believe that youth are powerful agents for change in their own lives and in the lives of others, we believe they are the experts of their own lived experiences, and that the best way to serve youth is through love, compassion, stability, with a deep respect and belief in their capacity to be powerful members of our community.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the 2024/2025 fiscal year The Launch Pad's Teen Advisory Council (TAC) completed the final phase of the Better Together Project, which was funded for 3 years by the Arizona Community Foundation. In 2024/2025, TAC completed the Better Together Project by organizing, planning and hosting 4 community wide dinners. The focus of these dinners was to bring community members together to learn and practice communication skills and engage in civil discourse. Participants ranged in age from 12-80+ and 600 people participated over the course of the year. TAC members engaged in many leadership activities. Here are some examples: reviewing peer applications for TAC membership, interviewing and approving new members, hosting meetings, organizing events and delegating duties, holding officer roles, engaging in strengths learning, setting up and taking down events, public speaking and engaging with the community. The average number of TAC participants for the 2024/2025 school year was 30 youth.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.8%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.3%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.35; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.2%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.5% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.8% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $834K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.