Evergreen Strategies Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770710527
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Phone
7043581000
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$342,265
Expenses
$129,372
Assets
$419,802
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JIM DULIN (CHAIRMAN)
  • SUSAN DULIN (DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS)
  • JEFF FLOYD (DIRECTOR OF ISRAEL PROJECT)

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

The evergreen strategies foundation is an organization that creates "sustainable solutions to housing and poverty." we develop clear vision statements and strategies for each area of impact, and we work to be sure effective teams are working on those strategies. We then provide financial support and assistance/oversight to each.the world is full of poverty and substandard housing at many levels - and god calls us to help those who are less fortunate. At the evergreen strategies foundation, we also belive god calls us to use the resources he has given us as wisely as possible, thus our commitment to sustainable strategies.

What it reported doing in 2019

Our guatemala stategy - guatemala is a very poor country in latin america, where many families live on $1 per day. There is significant malnutrition, as well as sub-standard housing in every city and village.we chose to help a small village in rurual guatemala, because latin america is often forgotten when it comes to charitable efforts due to focus on disaster relief in africa.we chose the village of la ladrillera, guatemala because we wanted to get to know the 600 families there. The families have strong christian beliefs. The men have stayed in the village but they lack the resources and a clear strategy to take care of their village on a sustainable basis. We also wanted to work in a village that is reasonably safe, so children could also safely visit.our strategy is to help the village holistically to increase income and the quality of life. So far our programs have included:1. A coffee program to help families increase production by replacing their older coffee plants and fertilizing plants.2. A program to help families raise chickents for food and income.3. A housing program to build bamboo housing and teach a builder in the village how to continue that building. This builder also builds bamboo furniture.4. Providing computers for the village school, since guatemala's government does not include computers in a school budget.5. Providing a library for the village, where students can do their homework and parents can use the computers, internet and printers.6. Providing a community store where clothing, shoes, etc. From the us can be purchased for $1.7. Providing support for a village nurse who a) helps families and midwives with prenatal services, b) attends to cuts from the machetes used in harvesting coffee, and c) provides nursing assistance prior to any hospital needs (the hospital is a 30 minute ride from the village and they have no medical insurance).as additional support for these programs, we have added a team member to our staff who lives in guatemala city. Stanley romero provides us with transportation and security during our annual trips to the village and also visits the village quarterly to support our programs there.

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 89% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 14
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 8.4%; rating input score 8
  • Program expense ratio: 22%; rating input score 22
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62.2%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.24; rating input score 70; 70th 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 8.4% of revenue deployed · 22% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 8/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.