Global Blood Fund

What it reported doing in 2024

A traditional mainstay of gbf's fundraising approach has been the "open arms" program, which gives blood centers across the u.s. And in other parts of the world an opportunity to offer their blood donors a charitable alternative to the usual recognition items of printed t-shirts, etc. This program creates a virtuous circle of activity such as improving donor choice, motivating collection staff, saving blood centers money, providing a diversity platform to encourage blood donation from minority communities and providing resources for international development work in an area of interest to all parties. However, participation has waned as blood center become more self-directed in their use of charitable funding. This has increased reliance on external donations, primarily from organizations involved in the blood banking ecosystem. The launch last year of 'friends of global blood fund' was designed. Through forward commitment, to bring more certainty to this income stream. But there is seemingly a reluctance - sometimes following legal advice - to commit to such future donations, and so the challenge of accurate budgeting in such circumstances remains. A number of applications were made for grants to fund scoped projects, but none were successful. The text-to-give service, long used by gbf, closed during the period, depriving the charity of future revenues through this channel. Gbf engaged in two rounds of crowdfunding to resource its commitments to village of hope and to manage the logistics of getting the garment donation to ghana. This was successful and will become a more routine part of the fundraising mix in the future. Gbf is the designated beneficiary of a percentage of revenues from other initiatives; namely revivr, donable and mission market. Funding from these streams is modest at present, but will grow as and when these projects become more established. Gbf held a t-shirt design contest, with the winning design being used on a garment that was then offered for sale. This raised modest additional funds.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 52.4%; rating input score 52
• Program expense ratio: 74.1%; rating input score 74
• Fundraising efficiency: $18.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
  • Compensation committee: Missing
  • Independent consultant: Missing
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
  • Written employment contract: Pass
  • Compensation survey or study: Pass
  • Board or committee approval: Pass
• Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
  • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
  • 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: 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: 40%; rating input score 40; 15th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 29.4%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 126.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings