Global Student Embassy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271662008
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Academic Exchange

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,539,845
Expenses
$1,712,360
Assets
$211,851
Liabilities
$27,315

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Mallory Bressler (Interim Ex Dir): $69,528 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Global Student Embassys mission is to empower young leaders to become environmental stewards, social innovators, and community leaders. In collaboration with international peers, students generate and implement powerful community-based solutions to shared ecological concerns.

What it reported doing in 2016

South to North Exchange: Each January, scholarships enable student representatives from our partner communities to come to California to participate in our local exchange. Student ambassadors visit each of GSEs project sites and get involved with local students in the planning, maintenance, and expansion of projects. Students stay with host families and engage in activities focused on collaborative projects with GSE students in Northern California. GSE works to break stereotypes and remove cultural barriers through building friendships, working together and representing our local cultures. The exchange reunites friends, brings new momentum to local projects, and often is the first time that visiting students have been to another country.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 87% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.3%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 84%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.2%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.8% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.3% of revenue deployed · 84% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • 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.

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.