The Valedictorian Project Inc C/o Warren Tolman

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
852099157
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6179222640
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,086,576
Expenses
$778,485
Assets
$609,822
Liabilities
$41,712

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • AMY MCDERMOTT (EXECUTIVE DI): $162,000 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 valedictorian project's mentoring relationships break down barriers to equity and close the education -to-employment gap for high-achieving students from urban schools. We recruit and train mentors who are passionate change-makers and committed to a more just future. We beleive in a more equitable future where every student has the network and guiedeance to achieve their goals.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the period ending june 30, 2025, the valedictorian project expanded its reach to nearly 200 scholars across Massachusetts - a 21% increase from the prior year - while deepening the quality of support available to each student. A significant milestone this period was the hiring of tvp's first full-time scholar coach, who worked directly with students navigating academic probation, housing instability, financial crises, and mental health challenges, while also creating a clear escalation pathway for mentors. Program outcomes remained strong: scholars maintained an average gpa of 3.5, and 100% of tvp's 2020 and 2021 cohorts graduated within five years of high school. These results reflect tvp's continued commitment to ensuring that high-achieving students from under-resourced communities not only access college, but persist through it and successfully launch their careers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.4%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 74.4%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 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: 28.4%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 45.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 33.2% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.4% of revenue deployed · 74.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $579K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 11 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.