Zero reported officer compensation across all filings, suggesting a very high proportion of funds are available for mission-related activities.
Expenses have remained relatively stable despite revenue fluctuations, indicating controlled operational costs.
Positive net income in most recent filing (202312: Revenue $1,479,590 vs. Expenses $1,018,248).
Spending Breakdown
How The Ashurst Foundation allocates its funds across programs, administration, and fundraising.
90%
Program Spending
Healthy — majority goes to mission
5%
Admin Costs
Reasonable — admin costs in check
5%
Fundraising
Within typical range
How to read this: Well-run charities typically spend 75% or more on programs, keep admin under 25%, and fundraising under 15%. A high program ratio means more of every dollar goes directly to the mission.
How to Interpret This Report
What Red Flags Mean
Red flags are potential warning signs identified by AI analysis of IRS 990 filings. They may indicate issues like declining revenue, high executive pay relative to program spending, lack of transparency, or governance concerns. A single red flag does not necessarily mean an organization is untrustworthy, but multiple flags warrant further investigation before donating.
What Mission Score Measures
The Mission Score (0-100) evaluates how effectively a nonprofit fulfills its stated purpose. It combines multiple factors: program spending efficiency (how much goes to programs vs. overhead), financial health and sustainability, governance quality, transparency in reporting, and consistency of operations over time. A score of 70+ indicates strong alignment with the organization’s mission.
Using This Data for Donation Decisions
Use this report as one input in your decision. Look at the overall Mission Score for a quick assessment, review red flags and strengths for specific concerns, check the spending breakdown to see where money goes, and compare executive compensation to the organization’s size. Consider viewing the full transparency report for deeper analysis, and always verify tax-exempt status with the IRS before making large donations.
Frequently Asked Questions about The Ashurst Foundation
Is The Ashurst Foundation a legitimate charity?
Based on AI analysis of IRS 990 filings, The Ashurst Foundation (EIN: 206325176) appears trustworthy. Mission Score: 75/100. 3 red flags identified, 4 strengths noted.
Is The Ashurst Foundation a good charity to donate to?
The Ashurst Foundation has a Mission Score of 75/100. Revenue: $2.0M. Assets: $19.1M. Review the full transparency report for detailed spending breakdown and executive compensation analysis.
What is the EIN for The Ashurst Foundation?
The Employer Identification Number (EIN) for The Ashurst Foundation is 206325176. This is the unique tax ID assigned by the IRS.
What is a Mission Score?
The Mission Score is a 0-100 rating that measures how effectively a nonprofit fulfills its stated mission. It factors in program spending efficiency, financial transparency, governance practices, and outcome reporting. Scores above 70 indicate strong mission alignment, 40-69 suggest mixed performance, and below 40 signals potential concerns.
How does The Ashurst Foundation spend its money?
The Ashurst Foundation allocates 90% to programs, 5% to administration, and 5% to fundraising. Healthy nonprofits typically spend 75%+ on programs.
How can I verify The Ashurst Foundation's tax-exempt status?
You can verify The Ashurst Foundation's tax-exempt status using EIN 206325176 on the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search (TEOS) at apps.irs.gov/app/eos. You can also request copies of their Form 990 directly from the organization, as they are required by law to provide them upon request.
AI Transparency Report
The Ashurst Foundation demonstrates consistent financial stability with substantial assets, averaging over $19 million in recent years. The organization's revenue has fluctuated significantly, from a high of $6.8 million in 2012 to a low of $766,925 in 2022, indicating reliance on potentially large, infrequent contributions. Despite these fluctuations, expenses have remained relatively stable, typically around $1 million annually, suggesting a consistent operational footprint. The foundation's liabilities are consistently reported as $1, which is highly unusual and suggests either an error in reporting or a unique financial structure that warrants further investigation for full transparency. This minimal liability figure, while seemingly positive, could obscure underlying financial realities if not properly explained.
Spending efficiency appears strong, as evidenced by the consistently low officer compensation (0% reported across all filings), indicating that a very high proportion of funds are available for programmatic activities. However, without a detailed breakdown of program, administrative, and fundraising expenses, it's challenging to precisely quantify efficiency ratios. The consistent asset base, despite revenue volatility, suggests effective asset management and a strong endowment or investment strategy. The lack of detailed expense categorization in the provided data limits a deeper analysis of spending efficiency beyond the positive indicator of zero officer compensation.
Transparency is a mixed bag. The consistent reporting of $1 in liabilities across all filings is a significant red flag that hinders a complete understanding of the organization's financial position. While the zero officer compensation is a positive transparency indicator regarding executive pay, the absence of detailed expense breakdowns (program, admin, fundraising) in the provided summary prevents a comprehensive assessment of how funds are allocated. To improve transparency, the foundation should provide clearer explanations for its minimal liabilities and detailed functional expense reporting.