Giving Strength Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 880835023
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
- Location
- Fulton, MD, USA
- Phone
- 4436906245
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Nerve, Muscle, Bone Diseases Research
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $203,911
- Expenses
- $129,996
- Assets
- $1,151,828
- Liabilities
- $229
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LINDSAY CURLEY (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- RONALD CURLEY (CHAIRMAN)
- CINDY CHILDS (DIRECTOR)
- JAMIE KEMPER (DIRECTOR)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Giving strength is a non-profit organization dedicated to funding research grants while increasing awareness of selenon-related myopathy. Our dedicated team, composed of volunteers, research assistants, and collaborators is unwavering in its mission to advance research efforts toward the development of viable and safe treatments for selenon-rm.currently, giving strength is proud to support groundbreaking research at the beggs laboratory at boston children's hospital, university of paris, and istituto di ricerche farmacologiche mario negri, all of which are making significant strides in the field. Through these invaluable partnerships, our organization strives to deepen the understanding of selenon-related myopathy and contribute to the creation of innovative therapeutic solutions, ultimately seeking to improve the quality of life for those affected by this disorder.
What it reported doing in 2024
Funding research grants and increasing awareness of selenon-related myopathy.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 81
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 66%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 94.8%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Pass
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Pass
- Requires grant agreements: Pass
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 63.3%; rating input score 63; 44th 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- 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: 36.2%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.86; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 34.1% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 69.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 66% of revenue deployed · 94.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $123K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
- 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.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.