Global Birthing Home Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
412156522
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Leawood, KS, USA
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Reproductive Health Care Facilities and Allied Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$509,084
Expenses
$523,710
Assets
$115,992
Liabilities
$10,785

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES GRANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • BECKY WICKSTROM (PRESIDENT)
  • ABBEY MASONBRINK (CO-VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • GUY MONTES (CO-VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES GRANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $60,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to significantly reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and improve health for mothers and babies in impoverished communities in haiti (full version in schedule o).

What it reported doing in 2023

Total maternal and infant health consultations: 45,818total prenatal care patients: 6,448total healthy deliveries: 531total well baby patients: 2,003

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 85% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 83.9%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 59.2%; rating input score 59; 30th 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -2.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.5%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.4% of revenue deployed · 83.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $440K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2023
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 59/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.