Fellowship of Reconciliation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133792144
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nyack, NY, USA
Phone
8453584601
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
International Peace and Security

Reported finances

Revenue
$986,067
Expenses
$1,028,424
Assets
$2,501,029
Liabilities
$727,279

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ARIEL GOLD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ARIEL GOLD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $107,877 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Fellowship of reconciliation, inc. (for-USA)'s mission is to organize, train, and grow a diverse movement of people of conscience committed to using the transformative power of nonviolence to create peace, end structures of violence and war, and build the beloved community.

What it reported doing in 2024

To support the work for the united states of america and to explore the use of love and truth for resolving human conflict, achieving world peace, elimination of poverty, and expansion of human rights.national for-USA program staff worked to organize a national summit of conversation and action with faith, community and civic leaders to address america's gun violence epidemic. For-USA staff partnered with the international fellowship of reconciliation's u.n. Representatives on initiatives related to conscientious objection, the climate crisis, and global issues of peace and justice. For-USA staff published articles and our fellowship magazine and hosted vital monthly online gathering voices events and conversations to address the need for peace at home and abroad, addressing issues such as growing white christian nationalism in the u.s.; the war in gaza; anti-black racism and antisemitism; and the ways in which our commitment to nonviolent peacemaking and conscientious objection to war, violence, hatred and oppression can help us respond to these national and global injustices. Organized, trained, and mobilized for-USA religious peace fellowships and chapters to help them address injustices in their respective communities and beyond; and welcomed and supported our new walter wink and june keener wink fellows, helping lift up their transformative work for peace and justice. Other exempt purposes were accomplished through diverse program initiatives, including the development of national sign-on statements on headline justice issues, the creation of online video programs & multimedia resources, and action campaigns that mobilized ifor's grassroots network of local chapters and national faith ally organizations. Social issues addressed by for-USA, often in partnership with national & international allied movements, included partnering with like-minded organizations to host an emergency summit for gaza; pilgrimaging from philadelphia to d.c. To protest large weapons manufacturers; nourishing students and communities calling for ceasefire in gaza and conscientious objection to war and violence with food and fellowship; honoring the memory of for legacy member rev. James lawson; growing our capacity to make available our historic archives; and sharing our historic mlk and the montgomery story comic and study guide with activists, educators, and all interested in the transformative work of nonviolent peacemaking in the fierce urgency of now.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.2%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 57%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.3%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.43; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.2% of revenue deployed · 57% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $586K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.