Veritas Adolescent Services Inc TA Abundant Life Academy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453189992
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2014, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Freehold, NJ, USA
Phone
4352752933
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Children's, Youth Services
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$47,100
Expenses
$47,800
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Paul Branning (Director)
  • Kimberly Branning (Director)
  • Kevin Hay (Director)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization is a non-denominatinal Christian boarding school for adolescent boys and girls which has the intention of effectively addressing the needs faced by youth in today's culture, providing a pressure-free spiritual environment where enrollees experience the freedom of choice, receive the benefit of ciriculum based academic learning and life counseling centered on developing critical thinking skills.

What it reported doing in 2016

The organization had provided academic and life counseling services to adolescent youth from throughout the U.S. at the organization's present operating location in Milford, VA and at its previous operating location in St George, UT.Operations were discontinued in December of 2014.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Transfer-based 990-EZ. The 990-EZ reports grants or member benefits, but it does not separate enough spending to show the nonprofit’s full delivery mix.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.9%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.5%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -100.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -107.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.9% of revenue deployed
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 4 of 4 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2015 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.