Glass Recycling Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
831755733
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Phone
7036846359
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recycling Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$173,353
Expenses
$138,582
Assets
$427,756
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT DEFIFE (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SCOTT DEFIFE (PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA HENNEMANN (SECRETARY)
  • JOHN EICHBAUER (TREASURER)

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

To promote the preservation of the environment through glass recycling through education, grant making and creating pilot programs for effective glass recycling working in collaboration with other trade organizations in the glass recycling value chain.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, the grf provided glass recycling grants and support projects in these areas across the country: keep waco beautiful, waco, tx; city of omaha, ne; sds foundation, great bend, ks; city of temple, tx; baldwin county, al; james city county, va; logan county, oh; b.i.g recyclers, walla walla, wa; lawrence-mercer county, pa; workwell industries, louisville, ky; and Pennsylvania resources council, pa. Through these programs, nearly 2,700 tons of glass were diverted in 2024 from local landfills, supporting the circular economy for glass recycling in the u.s.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.7%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 61.3%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 20.1%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.09; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -20.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.7% of revenue deployed · 61.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $85K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.