Black Male Voter Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
843530186
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2029267447
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Voter Education, Registration

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,349,185
Expenses
$1,594,774
Assets
$1,761,201
Liabilities
$6,548

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM MONDALE ROBINSON (CHAIR; THEN PRINCIPAL(TRANS. 9/2020)): $42,385 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The work of black male voter project is to increase the number of black men that are super voters. As the only national organization that solely focuses on the voting habits of black men, we launched this organization because we saw the (continued on schedule o)shortcomings in current techniques as methods of reaching black men who were not super voters. Traditional campaigning is insufficient to expand the universe of sporadic or low information black men that participate in the electoral process.

What it reported doing in 2020

-brotha's be voting: focus groups designed to find out what issues are most important to black men in this country. The information gathered in these meetings is used for our bmep additory approach.-bmep additory approach: a civic engagement strategy that we employee all over the country to engage black men by centering the issues from our focus groups and getting them more involved with civic life and the electoral process.-nightclub ambassador program: meets black men where they are. Partners with clubs, promoters and dj's to bring awareness to black male voter project and to begin sparking the interest of black men in electoral politics.

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 a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.2%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $96.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 52.4%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.1; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.2% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $42K · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $248K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.