FACE AIDS

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203699060
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Highland Park, IL, USA
Phone
2246274716
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$228,030
Expenses
$211,994
Assets
$327,227
Liabilities
$144,803

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Margo Watson (Prior Exec Dir): $48,000 total reported compensation
  • Lauren Young (Organizing Dir): $40,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The FaceAIDS model of engaging students and young people to build a movement combines tangible results now for people suffering from AIDS and promise for future leaders who will tackle this issue.

What it reported doing in 2013

In 2007, Partners In Health, one of the world's premier social justice and health care organizations, invited FACE AIDS to expand our operations beyond Zambia and join them at their new site in Rwanda. FACE AIDS now works in poor, rural communities in Rwanda's Eastern Province, focusing on HIV-affected youth. Our programs address the factors that make young people vulnerable to HIV/AIDS and poor health outcomes more broadly. Specifically, we provide youth with a social support network, empower them through income-generating activities and youth-led savings and credit cooperatives, and encourage them to become leaders in the health and development of their communities.In the U.S., FACE AIDS has established chapters at over 205 colleges and high

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.5%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 67.2%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.54; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41.5%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -70.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 59.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.5% of revenue deployed · 67.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $143K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $48K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.