Victoria Adult Literacy Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742441772
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2019
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Victoria, TX, USA
Phone
3615824273
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Humanities Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$55,982
Expenses
$55,165
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TANYA ALEMIDA (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • TANYA ALEMIDA (PRESIDENT)
  • NEAL CLARK (DIRECTOR)
  • RACHEL ROBINSON JOHNSON (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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To increase adult literacy through free instruction and community outreach in order to improve the workforce and raise the quality of life in the victoria and surrounding areas, to train and supervise volunteer tutors, and increase community awareness of the problem of literacy.

What it reported doing in 2019

Provided a diverse adult literacy program through the use of trained volunteers that met the needs of the educationally deprived impartially and without bias in the victoria and surrounding area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 89.7%; rating input score 90

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 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd 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: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -23.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 89.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $49K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2019
  • 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: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.