Burma Border Projects

Legal name: Burma Border Projects Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043533059
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2019
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Worcester, MA, USA
Phone
5084503835
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Migration, Refugee Issues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$252,541
Expenses
$256,466
Assets
$5,104
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michael F Forhan (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Dr Kathleen Allden (Director)
  • Dr Elizabeth Call (Director)
  • Christina Fink (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To serve Burmese refugees in Thailand, making a direct impact on the lives of vulnerable children living along the Thai-Burma border by ensuring they receive an education.

What it reported doing in 2019

There are over 2 million migrant workers from Burma now living in Thailand. Many of these workers have children who for various reasons are not able to attend Thai schools. There exists a makeshift network of schools called Migrant Learning Centers which attempts to provide a basic education for these children. Burma Border Projects supports some of these schools by providing salaries for teachers and other educational material in support of this mission. Our counseling programs provide direct one-on-one trauma-informed therapy to children who have suffered from child abuse and individuals of any age who have suffered from human trafficking.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.6%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -21.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $256K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.