Global Recovery Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471283042
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Concord, NC, USA
Phone
7045849961
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$98,500
Expenses
$58,742
Assets
$100,958
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RON BLACKBURN (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT HEINRICH (CFO): $700 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To outfit disaster relief first responders with the tools necessary to facilitate relief efforts. To safeguard the health of first responders thus allowing them to perform their tasks without unnecessary exposure to injury and health risk.

What it reported doing in 2015

Provide disaster preparedness education and tools to n. Carolina 1st responders to enable them to accomplish relief efforts without risk of injury. To provide construction assistance through material, labor and cost to repair and rebuild shelters and refuges for youth, homeless and high need populations through partnership with organizations like humanitarian wave, habitat for humanity and sempre energy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% 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 total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.9%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 98.7%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40.4%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.72; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 66.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 49% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.9% of revenue deployed · 98.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $58K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $700 · 5 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.