Zerodivide

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943312181
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4157730388
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,305,662
Expenses
$4,008,714
Assets
$2,200,066
Liabilities
$736,560

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TESSIE GUILLERMO (PRESIDENT, & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • TESSIE GUILLERMO (PRESIDENT, & CEO): $229,786 total reported compensation
  • DAVID VENEZIANO (CFO & COO): $192,786 total reported compensation
  • ELAINE CARPENTER (VP, DEVELOPMENT): $185,543 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To help underserved communities realize the transformative power of technology to improve economic opportunities, civic engagement and healthy outcomes.

What it reported doing in 2014

Zerodivide partners with non-profit organizations to seamlessly integrate technology into programs to improve the economic opportunity, civic engagement, and health outcomes of at-risk communities zerodivide provides a culturally competent and comprehensive approach to technology intergration for social good. Zerodivide's services fall into three general categories consulting services, education and training, program implementation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 71.6%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -207%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -29% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 71.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $230K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.