Floating Doctors Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300492985
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Topanga, CA, USA
Phone
3104551150
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,086,287
Expenses
$639,092
Assets
$1,906,472
Liabilities
$2,203

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BENJAMIN LABROT (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BENJAMIN LABROT (CEO): $21,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The floating doctors mission is to reduce the present and future burden of disease in the developing world, and to promote improvements in health care delivery worldwide.our goals include: providing free acute and preventative health care services and delivering donated medical supplies to isolated areas.reducing child and maternal mortality through food safety/prenatal education, nutritional counseling and clean water solutions.studying and documenting local systems of health care delivery and identifying what progress have been made, what challenges remain, and what solutions exist to improve health care delivery worldwide.using the latest communications technologies to bring specialist medical knowledge to the developing world, and to share our experiences with the global community and promote cooperation in resolving world health care issues.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, floating doctors spent 261 days in clinic both deployed to 24 remote communities and held at our base of operations. We hosted 286 volunteers from 21 countries, providing medical, dental, and veterinary services, along with key health education programming in all three areas identified and developed in partnership with the communities and their self-identified needs. We expanded our midwife training program to hire a cohort of local midwives in three key communities, who conduct regular checks on pregnant women in the region and meet with floating doctors regularly to review any cases needing prompt follow-up or emergency care. In addition to enhancing our maternal healthcare for our patients, the midwives receive additional training in healthcare emergencies and basic care, technological training, and increased recognition by the ministry of health for their services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% 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.
  • 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 available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.4%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 75.4%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $51.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.2%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.98; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.4% of revenue deployed · 75.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $482K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $21K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.