Yard Sciences Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
854303991
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Mt Laurel, NJ, USA
Phone
8568009273
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,000
Expenses
$13,801
Assets
$52,372
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DR ABHIJEET J RASTOGI (CHAIRMAN)
  • NEERAJA RAGHUNATHAN (TREASURER)
  • KRISTIN ESTELLE BOARDA ED (TRUSTEE)

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

Yard sciences education foundation envisions a world where high schoolers with a passion for science have easy access to lab facilities and mentors regardless of the economic backgrounds they come from. We strive to hone the scientific mind of our future generations so that they are best equipped to step into college to pursue their dream career in science.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.1%; rating input score 36
  • Program expense ratio: 52.3%; rating input score 52

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: 31%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.79; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -29.5% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.6% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.1% of revenue deployed · 52.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.