The Lucy Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
850721345
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Phone
7865206306
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,297,198
Expenses
$1,260,281
Assets
$209,643
Liabilities
$91,600

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SANDRA BERMUDEZ (FOUNDER AND): $62,974 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The lucy project advocates for children who struggle to read and provides full and fair access to evidence-based literary intervention.

What it reported doing in 2025

During the reporting period, the lucy project continued to expand its impact across multiple programs and service areas, supporting both students and educators in advancing literacy outcomes. Across all programs, the organization served 11 schools and community sites, delivering structured literacy support through both direct intervention and professional learning initiatives. A total of 446 children received direct literacy intervention, providing targeted, evidence-based instruction to address foundational reading challenges. In addition, 196 students received intensive intervention services, allowing for more individualized and sustained support. The organization also conducted early identification efforts, with 223 children screened for reading difficulties, enabling timely intervention and support. Beyond student services, the lucy project significantly contributed to educator development. A total of 711 educators participated in professional learning opportunities, equipping them with the knowledge and tools to implement structured literacy practices in their classrooms and communities. In addition to these measurable outcomes, the organizations work has contributed to increased awareness of the science of reading, strengthened instructional practices among educators, and improved confidence and engagement among students and families. These efforts support long-term literacy development and help build stronger, more literate communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 89
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 26th 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: 2.8%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 57% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 49.6% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 31.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $63K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.