The Village Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611562515
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seaside, CA, USA
Phone
8313921500
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Support Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,508,728
Expenses
$2,424,111
Assets
$2,223,756
Liabilities
$99,622

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STACIE ANDREWS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • STACIE ANDREWS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $90,735 total reported compensation
  • SHIRA DIALLO (Director): $13,624 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To help our communities reach a greater state of well-being by strengthening children and families through the delivery of professional community based, culturally specific services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Academic tutorial program-the goal of this program is to ready high school students for graduation through a multi-pronged learning approach to include tutoring in the students' weak subject area, using computers for academic research, and enrichment activities such as music events and outings to art and cultural museums. Visits to selected universities and colleges are also organized for these students as an enhancement to the educational support this project provides. We have served over 70 students in this program. We work with teachers, families and other professionals. Our students have scored higher on their post assessments test and profeciency exam. We have witnessed academic growth and progress throughout the semester. Our goal is to insure our students maintain a letter grade of "c or better. We have implemented effective study habits so they make education a priority.

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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.8%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $915.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th 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: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 30.9%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.8% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.