Center for Interfaith Action on Global Poverty

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943446667
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025376566
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Interfaith Coalitions
Affiliation
Interfaith

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$428,057
Expenses
$611,659
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KATIE TAYLOR (DIRECTOR): $94,250 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Recognizing the enormous and underleveraged power of the faith sectorto impact global development outcomes, cifa's mission is to improvethe capacity and effectiveness of the faith community in itscollective effort to reduce poverty and disease.

What it reported doing in 2013

Cifa worked with georgetown university (funded by the gates foundation)to explore the most effective way to engage and partner with religiousleaders in the implementation of a new HIV risk-reduction approachcalled pre-exposure prophylaxis (prep). Prep is a cutting-edge methodfor reducing the risk of HIV infection that involves the use ofantiretroviral therapies (arts) for preventative benefit by individualswho are HIV negative. Prep proponents and implementers recognize theimportance of religious leaders, as trusted and influential communityleaders, to the success of any public health intervention. As such, cifa was asked to develop a framework and strategy for the engagementof religious leaders on prep. The cornerstone of this research was aseries of full-day, multi-faith consultations in four countries in sub-saharan africa; mozambique, south africa, kenya, and nigeria, that was presented and publicized in a final report available on the cifa website. The success of this work led to a second grant to develop messages and tools to proactively engage faith leaders and their comminties in HIV risk-reduction reports.

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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.8%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 45.3%; rating input score 45
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -42.9%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -43% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.8% of revenue deployed · 45.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $277K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $94K · 19 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $219K reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2013
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.