Tommy Apostolos Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200529965
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Roseville, CA, United States
Rating
94
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Gift Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$147,991
Expenses
$110,256
Assets
$140,771

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GAIL BAKER (PRESIDENT)
  • RACHEL WESP (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • HALLIE ROMERO (EXEC DIRECTOR AND SECRET)
  • GAIL BAKER (PRESIDENT)
  • RACHEL WESP (VICE PRESIDENT)

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

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

Overview

Mission

The Tommy Apostolos Fund’s purpose is to outfit the children of Roseville and the surrounding areas in order to build self-esteem and community support.

What it reported doing in 2025

The tommy apostolos fund provides clothing and essentials to underserved children in the community of roseville ca and surrounding areas

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.5%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.28; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 11 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 86.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $128K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 6 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.