Blue Planet Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
743050022
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Redwood City, CA, USA
Phone
4157624340
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
International Environment, Population & Sustainability

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,379,186
Expenses
$1,377,075
Assets
$802,547
Liabilities
$3,391,938

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

BPN's mission is to exponentially increase the impact of safe drinking water programs worldwide.

What it reported doing in 2012

Qur Global Network and Water Projects: Blue Planet Network has developed a global, online network, the Peer Water Exchange (PWX), www.peerwater.org to: 1. Give water groups around the world a way to: a. collaborate and manage sustainable, cost-effective water solutions; b. share learning and best practices transparently; 2. Offer companies, philanthropists and individuals a single source to: a. fund high quality water and sanitation projects that have been "pre-approved" by PWX member peer review, and; b. see the tangible impact of their support. 3. Review and fund high potential water and sanitation projects in rural areas of developing countries and ensure long-term maintenance and education for maximum project impact.We have leveraged the collective resources and brainpower of water groups & individuals around the world. A common online platform to foster collaboration, fund high potential projects, & share experience and project data strengthens all individual efforts and creates new ones...all for the benefit of those without access to safe drinking water. Together, we have enabled over 300 water and sanitation projects in 27 countries, bringing safe drinking water for life to nearly one million people. Since inception we have hosted $40 million of water and sanitation project data on=line in a format that is available for all 94 member stakeholders (and anyone else interested) to learn from.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.2%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 4.23; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 40% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 8 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2012
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.