Far Away Projects

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821917723
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Sacramento, CA, US
Phone
+1 (501) 646-1509
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$906,656
Expenses
$1,270,377
Assets
$822,718
Liabilities
$158,721

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Anne Coleman (Executive Director)
  • Desiree F Tavera (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Charles M Coleman (Operations Director): $33,384 total reported compensation
  • Anne Coleman (Executive Director): $31,250 total reported compensation
  • Desiree F Tavera (President): $28,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Build an equitable and regenerative future

What it reported doing in 2024

One of Far Away Projects 3 core programming objectives was to offer support as a fiscal sponsor, with a sharpened focus on driving impact through technology and innovative solutions. We prioritized program services for projects that leverage cutting-edge technology to address critical global challenges. This included supporting initiatives aimed at removing plastic waste from mangrove ecosystems through circular economic models, deploying AI solutions to reduce bycatch in fishing operations, and developing telecommunications systems for humanitarian aid organizations operating in remote regions. Our work involved providing comprehensive support to these projects at various stages of their development, from governance advice and funding strategies to accounting and operational best practices. By fostering these pioneering projects, we are dedicated to creating sustainable, scalable solutions that address the worlds most urgent problems. Our fiscal sponsors

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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: 25
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.3%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 13.9%; rating input score 14
  • Fundraising efficiency: $87.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 0th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -40.1%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.5% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 20.3% of revenue deployed · 13.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $177K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $33K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.