Vela Education Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
844185046
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Deerfield, IL, USA
Phone
5042507715
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,940,669
Expenses
$11,450,200
Assets
$21,403,298
Liabilities
$2,948,056

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH SELING (CHIEF OF OPERATIONS): $406,779 total reported compensation
  • LINDSAY KELLY (DIRECTOR-BRAND AND COMMUNICATIONS): $227,428 total reported compensation
  • LAUREN GREVEL (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS): $193,106 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 vela education fund exists to accelerate education innovation and opportunity for every learner by: supporting everyday entrepreneurs building custom education programs to meet families learners' needs, increasing awareness of nontraditional education, and accelerating adoption by more families and communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Vela education fund made 500 grants to support the creation or expansion of community-based nontraditional learning models. Vela facilitated community-building, knowledge-sharing, and resource-sharing amongst its community of entrepreneurs and increased awareness of nontraditional education through storytelling, research, and community events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.2%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $54.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 30th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: 39.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.87; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 43.7% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.2% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $407K · 12 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.2M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.