The Literacy Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330395322
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Newport Beach, CA, USA
Phone
9497211319
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$400,656
Expenses
$297,204
Assets
$858,675
Liabilities
$5,580

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT LOPEZ (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • SUE GRANT (Chairman)
  • SCOTT LOPEZ (Vice President)
  • PENNY M FOX (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

In each school we partner with a group of six students are taught to read in 30 lessons using a game format. The program is admimistered by a master teacher who focuses on five essential reading components: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The game format is highly engaging, fun, and effective, using three learning modalities - auditory, visual, and tactile. The curriculum aligns with state standards and best practices in reading instruction to achieve student literacy.founded in 2009, the literacy project (tlp) has helped more than 10,000 struggling readers improve their phonetic skills and become more self-confident, leading to grade-level reading. Throughout the program, we assess students to monitor their progress. In the last school year, 85% of all tlp students met or exceeded their primary end-of-year growth goal. During the past year, reading programs have expanded from California to Utah and Arizona.

What it reported doing in 2023

Through pre- and post-testing, both academic and attitudinal, the literacy project program proves significant, measurable gains in phonics, word decoding, word identification, english fluency, and reading, which increases self-esteem and confidence in reading skills. A nationally acclaimed assessment method is used for the pre- and post-testing of attitudes.the orange county department of education's (ocde), evaluation, data, and assessment center (edac) reviewed the program independently in 2012. The data concluded that "tested students began the program with lower reading skills than the comparison group and tested significantly higher than non-participating peers." it was consistently found that participating students outperformed their non-participating peers, regardless of their grade, age, or school. As a result, students improved by three-fourths of a grade level or seven months of classroom instruction.participants began the program with reading proficiency levels below 25% of their non-participating peers. Participants' phonetic skills increased by an average of 76%, and their reading proficiency was nearly identical to their peers, which means tpl's program succeeded in "bridging their literacy gap." compared to their peers, this is a significant improvement. In some cases, studies show that the participant outscored the control group (non participating peers) by as much as 129%.the post program attitudinal survey revealed significant measurable results, including over: 80% reported that reading was more enjoyable 80% felt they had become better readers 60% liked school more 70% felt their grades were improving 75% reported that reading better made school more fun

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 15
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 10.7%; rating input score 11
  • Program expense ratio: 14.4%; rating input score 14
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.8%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.89; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 10.7% of revenue deployed · 14.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $43K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 11/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.