Caravanserai Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812497638
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Palm Springs, CA, USA
Phone
3104630154
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,007,396
Expenses
$1,765,431
Assets
$745,147
Liabilities
$149,481

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MIHAI PATRU (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MIHAI PATRU (PRESIDENT): $100,450 total reported compensation
  • FRANZENE MINOTT (CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER): $67,039 total reported compensation
  • STEPHEN BENNETT (BOARD TREASURER): $65,700 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Caravanserai project promotes social and economic progress by bridging gaps between cultures and environments through fiduciary and intermediary support via trainings, education, and technical assistance. It serves as a fiduciary for certain projects and organizations working consistently with the mission of caravanserai project including mossier social action

What it reported doing in 2024

The business coaching program provides one-on-one and group advisory services to entrepreneurs, nonprofit leaders, and small business owners to strengthen their management, operations, and long term sustainability. Participants receive tailored guidance in areas such as financial management, compliance, business planning, marketing, and organizational development. Coaching sessions are designed to meet each participant's specific needs and to provide actionable tools for growth.the program emphasizes support for historically underserved and underrepresented communities. By offering individualized coaching and technical assistance, it helps participants improve their business models, access funding opportunities, and increase their capacity to create jobs and deliver services in their communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3,466.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 32.1%; rating input score 32; 27th 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -75.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.2%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 32.3% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 34.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 23 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.